It's not wrong at all Mongrel. You're just refusing to see the huge number of social conservative Christians in America, not to mention other traditionalists. How do you think Crooked Hillary lost? >:O You tell yourself stories of folks hating on the establishment, yadda yadda yadda - but the truth is their hatred is much deeper. They hate the fact that this establishment has been destroying their way of life - and they hate Hollywood and the media too. These people are sick of it.I have no idea how you got that impression, dude. But it's wrong. — Mongrel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_in_the_United_StatesSorry, Ag. I live in the so-called Bible Belt. It's my family, so I think I know them. You don't understand the US culture at all. You've been identifying with the wrong country all this time. :( — Mongrel
My concept of conservatism isn't from the 1950s at all Mongrel. Again, I have no option but to think you're just lying. Have you ever listened to, for example Ben Carson? Have you ever listened to Ted fucking Cruz?Your concept of social conservatism is from the 1950's. PM me if you want to talk about it further.. if not, vaya con dios. — Mongrel
Abortion[edit]
Social conservatives argue that they are "pro-life", opposed to abortion on moral grounds often based on arguments of fetal personhood.[4] Personhood arguments focus on giving a fetus the status of a person which then entitles them to the right to life.[5] Social conservatives often support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Same-sex marriage[edit]
Social conservatives are against the legalization of same-sex marriage, supporting instead laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They oppose same-sex marriage over concerns on parenting, religious concerns, concerns of continued changes to the definition of marriage, and concerns about tradition.[6] Conservatives are often opposed to homosexuality, and therefore are concerned with "normalizing" homosexuality through the institution of marriage.
Sex Education[edit]
Sexual conservatives are social conservatives concerned with the moral education and possibly age-inappropriate information their children get from sex education classes in public schools. Sexual conservatives prefer Abstinence-Only sex education, as opposed to Comprehensive Sex Education. This political view stems from strong beliefs in parental authority and strict moral values.
[...]
2000s
Social conservatives again became powerful in American politics in 2001 with the election of socially conservative President George W. Bush. It has been argued that many of Bush's policy decisions were strongly influenced by his religious beliefs.[17] During his time in office Bush would pass influential conservative social policies such as the Defense of Marriage Act and support an increase in funding of Abstinence-Only Education.[18] While President Bush did not strongly promote pro-life policies, he supported the movement through an emphasis on parental rights and focus on strict regulation of taxpayer funding. — Wikipedia
Yes it's about abstract words, which actually, in concreto, are masks for vice (Y)Not just marriage, but also status more generally — TheWillowOfDarkness
Does this being "an independent acting being" (which is actually an empty and nonsensical abstraction), does this practically, not in abstract terms, but in concreto, does this mean she can be a little snitch? — Agustino
No there is no such freedom. That's an abstraction right there.For sure. That's a possibility. Due to the freedom of our world (since no state logically necessitated), anyone can be a little snitch. In concreto, there is nothing we can do to remove the possibility of someone behaving unethically (or in a way someone else doesn't like). — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, but people must have skin in the game. Skin in the game, those are the words. And this is true whether they are male or female - their sex makes no difference.Not an "abstraction" with no meaning, but a truth of being free actors. No amount of pretence of "nature" or "authority" undoes this. Respect is only given by a person freedom. One cannot force other such that ethical behaviour (or the behaviour you want) is necessary. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Common maaaan - the guy is a neurosurgeon you don't get to become a neurosurgeon if you're an idiot. Maybe you mean he's not educated in matters other than medicine? Maybe - he's certainly not a big brain on economics. But I think on morality and medicine he's good.He's opinionated but not smart. — Heister Eggcart
No it isn't. It really isn't. The freedom you're talking about is just words on a page, nothing real.To argue there is no such freedom amount to arguing for predetermination-- that are actions can somehow be defined without actions themselves-- which is utter nonsense. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No they don't have skin in the game if they can do damaging actions and get away with it without suffering for it.When exactly do people not have skin in the game? With respect to ethical interests is that is unavoidable; one is seeking to achieve a particular way of life or perform an action they understand they need to. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No they don't need to be threatened, they need to know that there are consequences for immoral behaviour. They can't get away with being little snitches.What I think you mean is, however, is people need to be threatened by the powerful if they are to behave ethically. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Why do you think he's not smart on morality? :-}Medicine, yes. Not much else. — Heister Eggcart
True actually now that I think about it >:O - but there is a grain of truth in success doctrine lol.Success doctrine windbag. — Heister Eggcart
I wonder if folks would be interested enough to lend an ear to Adrian Piper, artist, feminist, philosopher, harridan. — unenlightened
They are just too difficult to understand — unenlightened
couples who are active in their faith are much less likely to divorce. Catholic couples were 31% less likely to divorce; Protestant couples 35% less likely; and Jewish couples 97% less likely... Christianity Today
Why do you reckon this is the case, given the conservative beliefs with regards to marriage?Being conservative, per se, isn't the critical factor in reduced rates of divorce. — Bitter Crank
Really? I'd expect this to be so for Orthodox Jews, but certainly not for the more liberal strains of Judaism, which from my reading, seems to be largely dominating the US Jewish population.Jewish couples 97% less likely
Why do you reckon this is the case, given the conservative beliefs with regards to marriage? — Agustino
Surely, but that there is no difference between liberals and conservatives in practice on divorce/marriage, that suggests that inactive beliefs don't make any difference at all? That seems intuitively false to me. Certainly the fact that X has certain beliefs, even if X is not involved in a community exemplifying those beliefs or actively engaged in them such as attending anti-feminism protests, etc. one would still expect X to behave more conservatively than Y who has the opposite beliefs, but less conservatively than Z who has conservative beliefs, and is actively engaged with them.Inactive beliefs are less important than active practice. It's one thing to live in a progressive or conservative community; it's another thing to be engaged in that community. One can never darken the door of a church, but have great concern that the worship be conducted in a particular manner.
Engagement in a religious community will affect life-outcomes (like divorce) much more than sitting at home and nattering on about religion and the #)(%#*(@!)#(%& government, Obamacare, feminism, et al. — Bitter Crank
That seems intuitively false to me. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.