Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Defeating social conservatism

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:39:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I quite agree.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 8:18:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Hopefully, gay marriage will be the death knell.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.


- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

For example, I had an argument with someone on this site who's views were both socially and fiscally conservative. He made it clear to me that he was against abortion and also against welfare. When I asked him why he basically responded with the typical "pro-life" assertion that abortion is wrong because he "believes in the sanctity of innocent and potential life".

It seems conservatives want the government to force women to carry and give birth to children they either do not want or cannot take care of. But when that child is born and the parents of said child cannot care for them efficiently, that child must grow up in a poor, unwanted environment where the parents are struggling to feed and clothe it etc... But because conservatives are also against welfare, god forbid the parents of that child turn to government assistance to take care of it, they want to take that away from them as well. If he really cared about that child's life, he wouldn't be against the very thing keeping that child alive after it is actually born. Not only is this view hypocritical in that respect, it also goes against the idea of "small government" that conservatives claim to believe in so much.

This is only one of many issues with conservative ideologies.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Am I a bigot?

Also I can't be that illogical if I beat Danielle in a gay parenting debate... http://www.debate.org...

For example, I had an argument with someone on this site who's views were both socially and fiscally conservative. He made it clear to me that he was against abortion and also against welfare. When I asked him why he basically responded with the typical "pro-life" assertion that abortion is wrong because he "believes in the sanctity of innocent and potential life".

It seems conservatives want the government to force women to carry and give birth to children they either do not want or cannot take care of. But when that child is born and the parents of said child cannot care for them efficiently, that child must grow up in a poor, unwanted environment where the parents are struggling to feed and clothe it etc... But because conservatives are also against welfare, god forbid the parents of that child turn to government assistance to take care of it, they want to take that away from them as well. If he really cared about that child's life, he wouldn't be against the very thing keeping that child alive after it is actually born. Not only is this view hypocritical in that respect, it also goes against the idea of "small government" that conservatives claim to believe in so much.

This is only one of many issues with conservative ideologies.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:21:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Am I a bigot?

Also I can't be that illogical if I beat Danielle in a gay parenting debate... http://www.debate.org...

You winning an online debate, whose results may or may not be skewed in the direction of the bias views of the people who voted on it really means nothing. And I didn't say YOU were illogical or a bigot, I said your views are.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:26:22 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:21:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Am I a bigot?

Also I can't be that illogical if I beat Danielle in a gay parenting debate... http://www.debate.org...

You winning an online debate, whose results may or may not be skewed in the direction of the bias views of the people who voted on it really means nothing. And I didn't say YOU were illogical or a bigot, I said your views are.

Three votes were "good". Two of those came from liberals. Of the less quality votes, one was a liberal who changed opinion. Two were conservatives. Most people on the site are *very* hostile in regards to my social conservatism.

Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Define bigoted. Against people of color? I am latino. Against gay people? One of my best friends is gay. Against women? That doesn't make sense--I would not exist without women!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:26:22 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:21:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Am I a bigot?

Also I can't be that illogical if I beat Danielle in a gay parenting debate... http://www.debate.org...

You winning an online debate, whose results may or may not be skewed in the direction of the bias views of the people who voted on it really means nothing. And I didn't say YOU were illogical or a bigot, I said your views are.

Three votes were "good". Two of those came from liberals. Of the less quality votes, one was a liberal who changed opinion. Two were conservatives. Most people on the site are *very* hostile in regards to my social conservatism.

Again, it doesn't matter. I can just as easily say I am always right because I have never lost a debate on this site, but it doesn't mean anything, I can be just as wrong as anyone else.

Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment. Nobody is forcing them to marry the same sex, so what is the point of trying to ban it if it has no real affect on anyone who doesn't want to marry the same sex. Same for abortion, euthanasia and a few other issues.

Define bigoted. Against people of color? I am latino. Against gay people? One of my best friends is gay. Against women? That doesn't make sense--I would not exist without women!

First of all, I never said any of those things. And Second, none of those things exclude you from being a bigot. Just saying. Being Latino doesn't automatically make you immune to disliking people of color, including other Latinos. Just like having a gay best friend means nothing if you still believe that friend deserves less rights than you.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 10:59:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, this is why I respect 16kadams more than just about any social conservative that I've encountered. There isn't an underlying, emotional justification to his points that drives him to political fervor, he can actually examine the issues without becoming too emotionally invested. That's very rare; most social conservatives have an underlying religious motive which, quite frankly, annoys the bejesus out of me, because any 'debate' is one-sided and evangelistic to begin with.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.



- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:06:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:59:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, this is why I respect 16kadams more than just about any social conservative that I've encountered. There isn't an underlying, emotional justification to his points that drives him to political fervor, he can actually examine the issues without becoming too emotionally invested. That's very rare; most social conservatives have an underlying religious motive which, quite frankly, annoys the bejesus out of me, because any 'debate' is one-sided and evangelistic to begin with.

Exactly. I have encountered way too many conservatives that resort to religious rhetoric to support justify their views, ignoring the fact that not everyone is obligated to accept or follow their religion. Many even blatantly lie about certain issues. Again, using gay marriage as an example, some conservatives say things like "Gay marriage is about procreation" when it's clearly not, but they use that made-up assertion to justify their bigoted beliefs. But like you said, there is a minority of conservatives who do not do that and those are the ones I usually get along with. They tend to be against it for their own reason, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to follow that belief.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

For example, I had an argument with someone on this site who's views were both socially and fiscally conservative. He made it clear to me that he was against abortion and also against welfare. When I asked him why he basically responded with the typical "pro-life" assertion that abortion is wrong because he "believes in the sanctity of innocent and potential life".

It seems conservatives want the government to force women to carry and give birth to children they either do not want or cannot take care of. But when that child is born and the parents of said child cannot care for them efficiently, that child must grow up in a poor, unwanted environment where the parents are struggling to feed and clothe it etc... But because conservatives are also against welfare, god forbid the parents of that child turn to government assistance to take care of it, they want to take that away from them as well. If he really cared about that child's life, he wouldn't be against the very thing keeping that child alive after it is actually born. Not only is this view hypocritical in that respect, it also goes against the idea of "small government" that conservatives claim to believe in so much.

This is only one of many issues with conservative ideologies.

Liberals have much in common with social conservatives, both liberals and social conservatives attempt to define acceptable lifestyles. Liberal are adamantly apposed to economic freedom.

Example social conservatives outlaw purchasing beer on Sunday morning, where as liberals take a person's beer money to transfer to another person.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:11:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:06:34 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:59:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, this is why I respect 16kadams more than just about any social conservative that I've encountered. There isn't an underlying, emotional justification to his points that drives him to political fervor, he can actually examine the issues without becoming too emotionally invested. That's very rare; most social conservatives have an underlying religious motive which, quite frankly, annoys the bejesus out of me, because any 'debate' is one-sided and evangelistic to begin with.

Exactly. I have encountered way too many conservatives that resort to religious rhetoric to support justify their views, ignoring the fact that not everyone is obligated to accept or follow their religion. Many even blatantly lie about certain issues. Again, using gay marriage as an example, some conservatives say things like "Gay marriage is about procreation" when it's clearly not, but they use that made-up assertion to justify their bigoted beliefs. But like you said, there is a minority of conservatives who do not do that and those are the ones I usually get along with. They tend to be against it for their own reason, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to follow that belief.

Yet, you think that your beliefs should be imposed on the rest of society.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:07:39 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:18:36 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Oddly enough, it's not fiscal conservatives I tend to dislike. It's social conservatives I cannot stand because many of their views are bigoted, illogical and hypocritical, especially if they also identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

For example, I had an argument with someone on this site who's views were both socially and fiscally conservative. He made it clear to me that he was against abortion and also against welfare. When I asked him why he basically responded with the typical "pro-life" assertion that abortion is wrong because he "believes in the sanctity of innocent and potential life".

It seems conservatives want the government to force women to carry and give birth to children they either do not want or cannot take care of. But when that child is born and the parents of said child cannot care for them efficiently, that child must grow up in a poor, unwanted environment where the parents are struggling to feed and clothe it etc... But because conservatives are also against welfare, god forbid the parents of that child turn to government assistance to take care of it, they want to take that away from them as well. If he really cared about that child's life, he wouldn't be against the very thing keeping that child alive after it is actually born. Not only is this view hypocritical in that respect, it also goes against the idea of "small government" that conservatives claim to believe in so much.

This is only one of many issues with conservative ideologies.

Liberals have much in common with social conservatives, both liberals and social conservatives attempt to define acceptable lifestyles. Liberal are adamantly apposed to economic freedom.

Example social conservatives outlaw purchasing beer on Sunday morning, where as liberals take a person's beer money to transfer to another person.

Good point. I admit this has some validity to it.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:13:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:11:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:06:34 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:59:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, this is why I respect 16kadams more than just about any social conservative that I've encountered. There isn't an underlying, emotional justification to his points that drives him to political fervor, he can actually examine the issues without becoming too emotionally invested. That's very rare; most social conservatives have an underlying religious motive which, quite frankly, annoys the bejesus out of me, because any 'debate' is one-sided and evangelistic to begin with.

Exactly. I have encountered way too many conservatives that resort to religious rhetoric to support justify their views, ignoring the fact that not everyone is obligated to accept or follow their religion. Many even blatantly lie about certain issues. Again, using gay marriage as an example, some conservatives say things like "Gay marriage is about procreation" when it's clearly not, but they use that made-up assertion to justify their bigoted beliefs. But like you said, there is a minority of conservatives who do not do that and those are the ones I usually get along with. They tend to be against it for their own reason, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to follow that belief.

Yet, you think that your beliefs should be imposed on the rest of society.

Example? I don't ever remember saying any of my beliefs should be imposed on every in society.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 4:08:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:13:59 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:11:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:06:34 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:59:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:49:08 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:30:14 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Why are my views bigoted? I wasn't arguing in favor of a gay parenting ban, only the fact that their children do worse. Do I oppose gay marriage? Yeah but I don't really care anymore. But my other social views--abortion, death penalty, euthanasia--are all because I think the banning/legalization of such practices benefit the country. How is that bigoted it the wellbeing of the *entire* country is my primary concern?

Maybe I should rephrase. It's not necessarily the conservative views that are bigoted, or at least not always, it's the fact that many conservatives feel everyone in the country should abide by their worldview and many conservative politicians use their views to dictate the law and how it governs the people. Gay marriage for example, being against it doesn't make you a bigot, but going out of your way to ensure gay couples can't get married because YOU don't like it, is bigoted, but a lot of conservatives think this way as clearly evident when conservative judges block gay marriage laws and after they have already been passed by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, this is why I respect 16kadams more than just about any social conservative that I've encountered. There isn't an underlying, emotional justification to his points that drives him to political fervor, he can actually examine the issues without becoming too emotionally invested. That's very rare; most social conservatives have an underlying religious motive which, quite frankly, annoys the bejesus out of me, because any 'debate' is one-sided and evangelistic to begin with.

Exactly. I have encountered way too many conservatives that resort to religious rhetoric to support justify their views, ignoring the fact that not everyone is obligated to accept or follow their religion. Many even blatantly lie about certain issues. Again, using gay marriage as an example, some conservatives say things like "Gay marriage is about procreation" when it's clearly not, but they use that made-up assertion to justify their bigoted beliefs. But like you said, there is a minority of conservatives who do not do that and those are the ones I usually get along with. They tend to be against it for their own reason, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to follow that belief.

Yet, you think that your beliefs should be imposed on the rest of society.

Example? I don't ever remember saying any of my beliefs should be imposed on every in society.

Every argument you have made is to have government define what others should do, especial gay marriage. You are no different than social conservatives.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 4:20:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.

Wow, retarded and insane for separating social from fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives support banning the activities you use as examples with moral justification. Fiscal conservatives would not see any problem with those issues, unless a product is going to be regulated. Smoking, drinking, and drugs are all harmless. If a person harms another punish just the offender for their action.

This is the reason social and fiscal conservatives must be separated. Social conservatives have much more in common with liberals, than fiscal conservatives.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 4:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
While I agree with the over-all message, there are pragmatic issues.

At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

The Republican Party would be split up into the tea party and libertarians roughly. This would limit their political strength vs democrats.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

A common trick by conservatives is to use secular law and reasoning to pass religious laws so this can get sticky.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Some of these issue are not entirely in the realm of social conservatism.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Zero role? Liberals are all for government control when it comes to wealth redistribution and product & environmental regulation. But sure, it's not so much on moral "lifestyle" choices.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 5:44:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 4:22:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
While I agree with the over-all message, there are pragmatic issues.

At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

The Republican Party would be split up into the tea party and libertarians roughly. This would limit their political strength vs democrats.

By separating social and fiscal conservatives thus forcing one group to the other party. This would also trigger movement within the other party. Social conservatives could find statist liberals much to their liking in one party with the other party being for personal and economic freedom. As long as political debate is only between social conservative and statist liberals nothing will change.


- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

A common trick by conservatives is to use secular law and reasoning to pass religious laws so this can get sticky.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Some of these issue are not entirely in the realm of social conservatism.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

Zero role? Liberals are all for government control when it comes to wealth redistribution and product & environmental regulation. But sure, it's not so much on moral "lifestyle" choices.

Bad use of zero by me, I should have stated lifestyle. You are correct.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 6:04:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 5:44:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 4:22:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
While I agree with the over-all message, there are pragmatic issues.

At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

The Republican Party would be split up into the tea party and libertarians roughly. This would limit their political strength vs democrats.

By separating social and fiscal conservatives thus forcing one group to the other party. This would also trigger movement within the other party. Social conservatives could find statist liberals much to their liking in one party with the other party being for personal and economic freedom. As long as political debate is only between social conservative and statist liberals nothing will change.

I don't think one former GOP side would go with the democrats. If the dems were to break too it would probably be progressives/socialists and more traditional dems like Hillary. That would leave us with 4 potential parties, but our winner take all voting system isn't designed for that, it naturally coalesces into a 2 party system.

*sigh* if only we had a ranked voting system :( https://www.youtube.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:26:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 6:04:19 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 5:44:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 4:22:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
While I agree with the over-all message, there are pragmatic issues.

At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

The Republican Party would be split up into the tea party and libertarians roughly. This would limit their political strength vs democrats.

By separating social and fiscal conservatives thus forcing one group to the other party. This would also trigger movement within the other party. Social conservatives could find statist liberals much to their liking in one party with the other party being for personal and economic freedom. As long as political debate is only between social conservative and statist liberals nothing will change.

I don't think one former GOP side would go with the democrats. If the dems were to break too it would probably be progressives/socialists and more traditional dems like Hillary. That would leave us with 4 potential parties, but our winner take all voting system isn't designed for that, it naturally coalesces into a 2 party system.

*sigh* if only we had a ranked voting system :( https://www.youtube.com...

The ranked voting system is interesting, as Jesse Jackson said "Keep hope alive".
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:06:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 4:20:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.

Wow, retarded and insane for separating social from fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives support banning the activities you use as examples with moral justification. Fiscal conservatives would not see any problem with those issues, unless a product is going to be regulated. Smoking, drinking, and drugs are all harmless. If a person harms another punish just the offender for their action.


See? It all depends how we define harm. You just SHREKT your entire argument. If a social conservative opposes drugs etc. because it harms other people they fit in line with your weird definition of what conservatism is.

This is the reason social and fiscal conservatives must be separated. Social conservatives have much more in common with liberals, than fiscal conservatives.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:54:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:06:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/25/2015 4:20:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.

Wow, retarded and insane for separating social from fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives support banning the activities you use as examples with moral justification. Fiscal conservatives would not see any problem with those issues, unless a product is going to be regulated. Smoking, drinking, and drugs are all harmless. If a person harms another punish just the offender for their action.


See? It all depends how we define harm. You just SHREKT your entire argument. If a social conservative opposes drugs etc. because it harms other people they fit in line with your weird definition of what conservatism is.

Drugs are a great example of why social conservative need to be treated separately. Let people live their own life. Drugs harm only the user, it is not government's responsible to protect family and friends of drug users. Social conservatism that is using government to enforce social values on the rest of society has cuased more problems than it prevented.


This is the reason social and fiscal conservatives must be separated. Social conservatives have much more in common with liberals, than fiscal conservatives.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:27:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:54:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/25/2015 4:20:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.

Wow, retarded and insane for separating social from fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives support banning the activities you use as examples with moral justification. Fiscal conservatives would not see any problem with those issues, unless a product is going to be regulated. Smoking, drinking, and drugs are all harmless. If a person harms another punish just the offender for their action.


See? It all depends how we define harm. You just SHREKT your entire argument. If a social conservative opposes drugs etc. because it harms other people they fit in line with your weird definition of what conservatism is.

Drugs are a great example of why social conservative need to be treated separately. Let people live their own life. Drugs harm only the user, it is not government's responsible to protect family and friends of drug users. Social conservatism that is using government to enforce social values on the rest of society has cuased more problems than it prevented.

Ever heard of second hand smoking?
Ever heard of hallucinations that cause people to lose control of themselvesthemselves?
Ever heard of driving under the influence?

This is the reason social and fiscal conservatives must be separated. Social conservatives have much more in common with liberals, than fiscal conservatives.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 6:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:27:03 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:54:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/25/2015 4:20:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:09:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/24/2015 11:00:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

Murder is a violation of another's liberty or property.

I find it funny how I define murder as a wrong in and of itself and you claim moral high ground by tallying it up to a loss of property. Seems legit.




- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.

A person can not be both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservative want economic freedom. If a person can not trade a product due to social constrains that is not economic freedom.

You seem to think that some restrictions make you not fiscally conservative. That is pretty much retarded. If everyone had to have 100% the same beliefs to fit into a category, ideology would not exist. In fact, if the free market (as you say) is all about protecting peoples' property, you could easily argue that smoking (second hand effects) drinking (drunk driving) and drug use (second hand effects, crime) take away other people's rights. So, in a way, you can still be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. You may disagree that those effects justify a ban, which is reasonable, but to say the two are not reconcilable is just insane.

Wow, retarded and insane for separating social from fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives support banning the activities you use as examples with moral justification. Fiscal conservatives would not see any problem with those issues, unless a product is going to be regulated. Smoking, drinking, and drugs are all harmless. If a person harms another punish just the offender for their action.


See? It all depends how we define harm. You just SHREKT your entire argument. If a social conservative opposes drugs etc. because it harms other people they fit in line with your weird definition of what conservatism is.

Drugs are a great example of why social conservative need to be treated separately. Let people live their own life. Drugs harm only the user, it is not government's responsible to protect family and friends of drug users. Social conservatism that is using government to enforce social values on the rest of society has cuased more problems than it prevented.

Ever heard of second hand smoking?
Ever heard of hallucinations that cause people to lose control of themselvesthemselves?
Ever heard of driving under the influence?

All are examples of imposing social values on others. No person should be punished until they cause harm to another. Second hand smoke, go to court get damages from the offending party. DUI's potential hazard has become imminent danger if a driver obeys traffic signals, maintains control, and does not hit anything or anybody should not be punished.

Policies regulating these behaviors are used by other political ideologies to regulate whatever is important to them. One example, since government can order a business to ban customer smoking. Now, groups are pushing bans on the sale of plastic bags based on a potential hazard.

In law making the slippy slope fallacy is not a fallacy, lawyers call it precedence.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 10:10:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:22:17 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Many liberals will find this surprising, but I too am opposed to social conservatives.

Opposition to most every political ideology is social conservatism. Social conservatism uses governmental power to impose religious and personal values on the rest of society, everything from marriage to intoxicants to societal organization. Social conservatism is constantly assaulting personal freedom of association. This ideology must be stopped.

How to stop incursions of social conservatism, a few premises to defeat it:
- Acknowledge the difference between social and fiscal conservatives; social conservatives must be separated from fiscal conservatives for an effective offense to be undertaken. Many social conservatives attempt to hide within groups of fiscal conservatives to seem like a larger group. Once the social conservatives are separated exposing their controlling agenda will be easier for intellectually honest debaters. Most everyone agrees that another person should not be defining how others should live.

- Oppose any policy that uses government to impose values on another. This preferred tactic of social conservatives must be stopped. Any law that is based on social values should be defeated.

Murder is based upon social values because we think it is immoral.

No, murder is illegal because it violates an individual's right. Assisted suicide should not be considered murder if the individual gives permission and is of sound mind to give permission. That right there explains the difference between social conservatives and others. Social conservatuves prefer government regulation to enforce and control citizens moral decisions most often under the guise of claiming their religion defines morality.

- Stop expanding the scope of social conservative policies, by reducing the effects of current laws. Examples are education policies, drug prohibitions, tax exemptions based on personal actions, and the like. Not by changing definitions, rather by ending government's role in these type of policies. No American should receive benefit or punishment for harmless behavior or personal association.

Most liberals will agree that government should have zero role in how a person conducts their life. It is time to separate and destroy social conservatism.

I am a social conservative but also a fiscal conservative... Taxes? A low 15% flat tax. Spending? nah m8. Prohibition? Yeah... But that has nothing to do with being a fiscal conservative.