I have no idea how you got that impression, dude. But it's wrong. — Mongrel

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.

You have only islands of progressivism in the US. Soon these islands will be submerged back into the ocean where they belong.

Sorry, 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. :(

Sorry, 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_in_the_United_States
at least 34% of your population is social conservative. Are you purposefully being disingenuous Mongrel, or are you just blind to it? Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, etc. :-}

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.

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

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?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_in_the_United_States

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

Not just marriage, but also status more generally. To be (and be recognised) as an independent being, who has their own thoughts and can pursue their own worthwhile projects. When it comes to these questions, women are frequently viewed as nothing. They are considered silent. In terms of an individual achievement, they cannot do anything worthwhile. Only the men have any capacity to perform great individual works. No, men are expected to be great-- they are thought a free individual, who is going to make something of themselves and others, to say something worth listening to. Women are just nothing, silent no matter how much they say. Some people (like Emptyheaded) put a lot of effort into thinking this, so they can enshrine the importance of men over women.

Not just marriage, but also status more generally — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it's about abstract words, which actually, in concreto, are masks for vice (Y)

Ben Carson is such a boof.

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

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).

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.

Why?

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 there is no such freedom. That's an abstraction right there.

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

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.

He's opinionated but not smart.

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.

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.

What I think you mean is, however, is people need to be threatened by the powerful if they are to behave ethically. Sometimes, this is, indeed true. It's still respect given by personal freedom though. The people you threatened could have resisted or ignored you. No matter your threats, these people are always free agents. What you assert is not a "nature" or "authority" which cannot be violated, but an expression of power of mind and body over people, to (hopefully) get them to choose to behave in the way you want.

He's opinionated but not smart. — Heister Eggcart

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.

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 it isn't. It really isn't. The freedom you're talking about is just words on a page, nothing real.

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 have skin in the game if they can do damaging actions and get away with it without suffering for it.

What I think you mean is, however, is people need to be threatened by the powerful if they are to behave ethically. — 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.

Medicine, yes. Not much else.

Medicine, yes. Not much else. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think he's not smart on morality? :-}

He's a complete shill. Success doctrine windbag. Just because he agrees with you on a few issues like abortion doesn't mean he's not a dick.

Success doctrine windbag. — Heister Eggcart

True actually now that I think about it >:O - but there is a grain of truth in success doctrine lol.

I wonder if folks would be interested enough to lend an ear to Adrian Piper, artist, feminist, philosopher, harridan. — unenlightened

Seemingly not. Which explains why there are no significant female philosophers. They are just too difficult to understand, and not worth the trouble, because ... there are no significant female philosophers.

They are just too difficult to understand — unenlightened

◔_◔ Yeah, that must be it...

Ruth Millikan is not difficult to understand, and she's both original and significant.

Being conservative, per se, isn't the critical factor in reduced rates of divorce. It's active involvement in religion that is correlated strongly with reduced divorce rates. Being conservative and secular is not correlated with reduced rates of divorce.

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

Other factors might also contribute to lower rates of divorce, like economic stability, population stability, lower rates of alcohol and recreational drug use, and the like.





At a quick glance, it would appear that marriage and divorce rates are something of hodgepodge. While some contiguous areas have higher or lower rates of marriage and divorce, a clear connection between political behavior and marriage or divorce would be difficult. The country didn't change between 2012 and 2016. What changed was the candidates and the style of campaigning. Obama's outgoing over-all approval rating was far higher than Trump's in-comimg approval rating -- something of an aberration in itself.

Being conservative, per se, isn't the critical factor in reduced rates of divorce. — Bitter Crank

Why do you reckon this is the case, given the conservative beliefs with regards to marriage?

Jewish couples 97% less likely

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.

◔_◔ Yeah, that must be it... — Emptyheady

>:O

Why do you reckon this is the case, given the conservative beliefs with regards to marriage? — Agustino

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.

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

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.

That seems intuitively false to me. — Agustino

Be that as it may, idle beliefs are worth less than actively lived beliefs. Actively lived beliefs are more effective than idle beliefs, because one is interacting socially with like minded people, and behaviors -- rather than just beliefs -- are reinforced by the group. "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." James said. This is true pretty much across the board from Marxists to fascists, with stops along the way for liberals and conservatives. A Marxist and a conservative who do nothing with their beliefs are ciphers, as far as the net difference their beliefs make.

Philosophy, science, literature, etc. Choose any field in the history of humanity. Compare a list of greats from men to women. Men grossly outweigh women in accomplishment. Fact is men and women are just different. Men naturally tend to be more out going, and it makes sense there's more accomplishment. It's a genetic misfire. Dudes gotta prove their worth to attract the ladies. women simply wait for the ideal 'alpha' to approach them. There's a reason men traditionally approach women more than women approach men. If there's a culture that promotes romantic or sexual freedom, and this isn't the norm, I'd love to hear about it. Fella's are born with a drive to succeed. Our genes depend on it for their survival, and our understanding of the universe has expanded proficiently because of it.

For first time in its history the prestigious Fields Medal mathematics prize has been awarded to a woman