I still find social conservativism the bane of the American politico. That being said, give this wonderful op-ed piece from the Economist a read. If you have the patience, you're guaranteed to be smarter after you've finished reading it.
The fallacy of careless contrarianism
There are a number of things one might like to say to Mr Landsburg, but let me congratulate him instead for his inspiring opposition to fallacious arguments from anecdote. One may wonder, however, whether this commonplace error is among our society's most pressing problems, much less among our society's most serious epistemological failings. I take it that Mr Wahls' problem, the problem he was addressing in his uplifting oration, is that a powerful political faction convinced of the essential evil of homosexuality by a magical book seeks to injure his family by voiding his mothers' marriage of its legal standing and stripping his family of the status and respect that flow from that. The science-minded Mr Landsburg may be shocked to learn the assault on marriage equality in Iowa and elsewhere is not predicated upon the modest empirical hypothesis "that gay people, on average, are less successful as parents"; it is based on a conviction of faith that homosexuality is a sinful perversion inherently corrosive to the values that make healthy families possible.
Fugsnarf wrote:
As much as I tend not to agree with your politics, I hardly believe they're "the bane of American politico". The freedom and choice to decide whether you want to be conservative or liberal is a good thing. This has absolute nothing to do with social conservativism. I suppose you'd love to live in a communist country where these opinion articles of yours wouldn't matter or would even be dangerous to post. Again, nothing to do with social conservativism. As an FYI, I have made trips to mainland China an average of four weeks a year for the last eight years. Your fear of communist countries are uninformed, and if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, misguided. Given your track record of ignorance, I can't give you that benefit yet. They're simply paradise. I've been to a couple of them. You went to Uganda, right? Be sure your not gay -- you wouldn't want the state sponsored, Bible -inspired death penalty for homosexuals to affect you. On topic, I agree with the man writing this article on a lot of points. While I'm generally a conservative -and- a Christian, I see nothing wrong with gay people having the right to marry. It's hypocritical for Christians to push for the banning of one sin when so many other things we believe are sinful are perfectly legal and even done by us. I also agree that there are plenty of other candidates for worse parents than a gay couple. I'm sure there are multitudes of gay families in which the child is just fine. Regardless of this opinion, I do believe that homosexuality is sin, but I also believe that drunkenness is a sin. I won't go pushing to ban any bars. Well written. Here's a challenge for you, Fugs. Name one benefit that the social conservative platform provides. Don't confuse this with monetary, economic, or constitutional policy. I'm guessing you will be unable to this. | |
This was a good read. I haven't previously heard of Zach Wahls, but my own situation is quite similar to his, and I can relate to him on many levels. I am not an American, but I entirely support gay marriage, and find it aggressively retarded that the idea is so contested.
With that said, in good spirit, below is the best article I've found speaking against gay marriage (and one of the few that even attempt to be rational). I knew about it for a little while now, but it was actually also linked in the comments section in this article. I disagree with it in full, but presenting a contesting view seems only natural. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 | |
Bootyboy wrote:
Here's a challenge for you, Fugs. Name one benefit that the social conservative platform provides. Don't confuse this with monetary, economic, or constitutional policy. It will fill us with join and happiness in knowing that THE LORD will spare us from his grim hellfire and Satan rage when the good lord Jesus Christ comes again. | |
In response to your challenge, and Popisfizzy's response to it, I will be honest and say that big reasons for me being a conservative are my Christian values and morals. I have my reasons for being a Christian, and I could go into detail and explain why if you'd like. It's my choice, and you two don't seem to value that right of choice. Instead, you chastise others for their choices and beliefs. I don't see that with conservatives, but I definitely see it with liberals like you two. I respect your beliefs and values, you don't respect mine.
The social conservative platform isn't necessarily about doing good for the world. It's about preserving liberty so that good can be accomplished on its own through the people, which I believe is better and more efficient than the government. I don't necessarily agree with every conservative ideal because I believe neither conservatives nor liberals are completely correct. I do say, however, that while liberals work to use the government to push different agendas (which often times have good intentions for the nation and world), conservatives stick around and keep the balance of liberty in check. If only one side existed, I believe this country would be a much worse-off place. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
In response to your challenge, and Popisfizzy's response to it I wasn't replying in a response parodying you. Mine was more parodying the most absurdly right-wing, consie stereotype. And I'm fine with conservatives in general. It's just people who are, specifically, socially conservative that I can not respect. They're the same people who kept in place the systems of antisemitism, of slavery, of a failure to give black individuals equal rights, they do the same to homosexuality, and they will continue to do the same ad infinitum. It's a stand born out of ignorance and clinginess to an idealized time that has not existed and never existed, and it's a simply a failure of society. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
In response to your challenge, and Popisfizzy's response to it, I will be honest and say that big reasons for me being a conservative are my Christian values and morals. You have yet again demonstrated an incredible lack of reading comprehension or a deliberate evasion of the challenge posted. I will repeat it. Say it out loud. Perhaps three times: Name one benefit that the social conservative platform provides. Don't confuse this with monetary, economic, or constitutional policy. I have my reasons for being a Christian, and I could go into detail and explain why if you'd like. It's my choice, and you two don't seem to value that right of choice. No one here has ever denied or devalued your right to choose -- that is your human right. It's your decided lack of reading comprehension that presumes that any kind of analysis on your brand of mythology equates to devaluing your right to believe in it is what always will be questioned. Instead, you chastise others for their choices and beliefs. I don't see that with conservatives, but I definitely see it with liberals like you two. I respect your beliefs and values, you don't respect mine. You are a fool. Read my blogs. You just assumed something in regards to my political views that is simply laughable. The social conservative platform isn't necessarily about doing good for the world. It's about preserving liberty This is a constitutional policy. Social conservatism is about constricting liberty to the edicts of an arbitrary mythology. so that good can be accomplished on its own through the people, which I believe is better and more efficient than the government. This is ridiculously generic. I don't necessarily agree with every conservative ideal because I believe neither conservatives nor liberals are completely correct. I do say, however, that while liberals work to use the government to push different agendas (which often times have good intentions for the nation and world), conservatives stick around and keep the balance of liberty in check. If only one side existed, I believe this country would be a much worse-off place. You evaded the question. I challenged you on social conservatism and _any_ tangible positive benefit. There's a natural but mutually exclusive relationship between libertarianism, which more closely describes your comment above, and social conservativism. | |
Did Fugsnarf just call Bootyboy a liberal?
| |
Galactic, it may not be the best place but the same is true of any Internet forum. If people want to share their beliefs with a particular set of peers, that should be perfectly alright.
Topical discussion is for the betterment of all involved (hopefully) and the only way that society evolves is through this. Without, ideas simply become stagnant. The more forums that this kind of discussion shows up in, the better. As for the discussion, I believe that the very idea of conservatism is evil and the bane of our society and liberalism is the way to go. And Fugsnarf, they're aren't any true communist countries. The fact that you equate communism and oppression shows that you really have no idea what communism is. A commonplace, yet irking error. "Instead, you chastise others for their choices and beliefs. I don't see that with conservatives, but I definitely see it with liberals like you two." "The social conservative platform isn't necessarily about doing good for the world. It's about preserving liberty." The hell it is. Liberalism is the stance you were looking for in that sentence. As Wikipedia defines it, "liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights." Whereas "social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes that government has a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors." Meaning that social conservatives are all about pushing their own agenda, what they believe is right and liberals are pushing an agenda that they believe serves all. On a closing note, it's nice to see that someone likes to bring interesting discussion to BYOND. | |
The liberalistic philosophies directly intertwine with the communism's agenda of the oppression and deterioration of the socially-ruined community and economic status. Had we had autocratic mindsets within the congressional seats of our country, your contrarianism would cease to conterminously exist. You can continue to attempt to oppose us with accusations of fallacious scenarios, but the bottom line is that your stance is heavily flawed because you have failed to effectively demonstrate the numerous consequences of the combined ideology your lot continuously displays.
| |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
The liberalistic philosophies directly intertwine with the communism's agenda of the oppression and deterioration of the socially-ruined community and economic status. Had we had autocratic mindsets within the congressional seats of our country, your contrarianism would cease to conterminously exist. You can continue to attempt to oppose us with accusations of fallacious scenarios, but the bottom line is that your stance is heavily flawed because you have failed to effectively demonstrate the numerous consequences of the combined ideology your lot continuously displays. He was kind of a snob, wasn't he? | |
Praise our Heavenly Father Lord Jesus. Praise Him.
| |
Koil wrote:
Praise our Heavenly Father Lord Jesus. Praise Him. Jesus isn't God. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Jesus isn't God. Not in Christian mythology~~~~ | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
EmpirezTeam wrote: Is that the one where they hang a daemon on a cross? | |
Dear Bootyboy,
What makes me sad is that religion and politics are being mixed in conversations. Even though the United States government is based in christianity, it doesn't mean that christians influence the country to do whatever they want. They are many races, religions, and cultures that affect the economy, the government, and the people. It also makes me sad that people have such profound opinions. Why waste time typing up that "God isn't real and Jesus is some jew who died for nothing" when, really, no one cares? How about we stay on topic? Now, Personally, I dont have anything wrong with homosexuals. There are many non-christians and homosexuals/bisexuals/transexuals who have established themselves in the government. If you profoundly state your sex origins or your religion, it might get you more and less votes. Sincerly, Darwin Blake~ | |
On topic, I agree with the man writing this article on a lot of points. While I'm generally a conservative -and- a Christian, I see nothing wrong with gay people having the right to marry. It's hypocritical for Christians to push for the banning of one sin when so many other things we believe are sinful are perfectly legal and even done by us. I also agree that there are plenty of other candidates for worse parents than a gay couple. I'm sure there are multitudes of gay families in which the child is just fine. Regardless of this opinion, I do believe that homosexuality is sin, but I also believe that drunkenness is a sin. I won't go pushing to ban any bars.