Secular arguments for social conservatism

[Ethel mermania]

Conversations about how bad single parenthood is and how people need two (usually male and female) parents to be normal or more successful are demoralizing to hear as a child of a single parent especially when there was no say in my father becoming a single parent. People die. Sometimes a parent will die and leave a single parent behind. Was my father a bad person or doing wrong by his kids by not remarrying just for the sake of having a more traditional looking nuclear family? I'd assume that nobody would say yes to that but then why even be so impassioned about how single motherhood fucking up kids. It's much more situational than just "single parent bad two parent better"

widowers are not usually considered the same as single parents

Weirdly, kids do better when a parent dies rather than when parents divorce

[Italios]

widowers are not usually considered the same as single parents

Weirdly, kids do better when a parent dies rather than when parents divorce

college essay about a parent dying - ivy league acceptance
college essay about parents divorcing - straight into the rejection pile

it's probably because divorce and its consequences are ongoing in a child's life and leaves little room for healthy emotional growth, while a parent dying gives you far more opportunity to move on.

[Punished UMN]

I think a secular argument for social conservatism, especially a utilitarian argument for social conservatism, is not socially conservative.

[Diarcesia]

I think a secular argument for social conservatism, especially a utilitarian argument for social conservatism, is not socially conservative.

Elaborate.

[Siebeland]

With a name like this, I'm not impressed with the direction this thread took. It's almost funny, were it not supremely tragic.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

It's true that a democratic state will offer the individual more freedom than the family unit in the context of many cultures, but I see this as a cultural problem rather than a case for dissolving the family.

It’s not a case for dissolving the family, no, more a case for letting people dissolve it if they wish.

I hold and have held for some years that freedom means being able to live the life you wish. My parents are great and I can’t even imagine cutting them out of my life, even now that I’m a vaguely functional adult. But I’m very well aware that many parents aren’t so great, and if some people feel that they’d be better off if they cut themselves off from their existing family (whether to go at life alone or to start a new family with people they love; desires may differ), then I advocate for minimising the barriers - economic, cultural, and social - standing in the way of them doing so.

Come right down to it, I will always trust an uncaring and bureaucratic institution with the defence of human rights and dignities more than I trust individual people with it. Only in the context of a powerful state (or a state-like entity) can individual freedom be realised.

[The Rich Port]

With a name like this, I'm not impressed with the direction this thread took. It's almost funny, were it not supremely tragic.

It's almost like it was just attempts at justifying illogical arguments by only taking out SOME of the crappy logic.

[Siebeland]

It's almost like it was just attempts at justifying illogical arguments by only taking out SOME of the crappy logic.

Cheers to that.

[Punished UMN]

I think a secular argument for social conservatism, especially a utilitarian argument for social conservatism, is not socially conservative.

Elaborate.

The entire ethos of social conservatism is based on a teleological view of life, that it is driven by a purpose that is outside of the self, which isn't really coherent from a secular worldview. Conservatism is an ideology, not a set of policies, you get the policies when you look at the reasons they support the things they support. It is possible for very disparate political groups to support similar policies, that doesn't mean they are practicing the same ideology.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And yet, Goldwater's libertarianism set the groundwork for the rich to get rich enough to buy politicians like Bush.

The Vanderbilts, the astors, and all the other robber barons were buying politicians long before Barry goldwater was on the scene

Yet clearly modern society has supercharged it. And libertarianism helped pave the way for that.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I won't argue against modern Scandinavia being superior to any place that's existed in the past. But I am referring to family values (e.g. nuclear family)

The nuclear family isn't really that traditional imo.

Really depends on how you define "tradition." How far back do we go? The behaviour of ancestors from a recent past and the behaviour of ancestors from a far more distant past are two different things.

[The Rich Port]

The Vanderbilts, the astors, and all the other robber barons were buying politicians long before Barry goldwater was on the scene

Yet clearly modern society has supercharged it. And libertarianism helped pave the way for that.

... Supercharged it? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?

People back then didn't even have HEALTHCARE INSURANCE or LIMITED WORK HOURS.

John D. Rockefeller alone was worth $400+ billion in TODAY'S money. That's $300 billion more than Jeff fucking Bezos.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Yet clearly modern society has supercharged it. And libertarianism helped pave the way for that.

... Supercharged it? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?

People back then didn't even have HEALTHCARE INSURANCE or LIMITED WORK HOURS.

John D. Rockefeller alone was worth $400+ billion in TODAY'S money. That's $300 billion more than Jeff fucking Bezos.

And we can weigh that against the fact that the American worker's productivity has increased, but wages haven't caught up.

But also, "income inequality" =/= "how much of that disproportionate income is spent buying politicians". I'm frankly not sure where to check the latter in terms of now vs. then compared, but I keep hearing it's getting worse from groups like TYT, whereas many of the people denying it's getting worse tend to be either conservatives or apologists for neoliberalism, so I assumed it by default. Feel free to correct me if I got this one wrong.

[Big Bad Blue]

What secular arguments agianst public nudity, profanity, and other agendas of social conservatism to protect family values?

If I weren't that religious and in my nation-state, I would still ban some religions such as satanism and some occult practices. Because while people will praise and criticize religion, a religion of pure evil without disguise would still be a bad influence on any society. https://assets.grammarly.com/emoji/v1/1f4a1.svg

What are the advantages of being catholic vs. evangelical Protestantism? Can sex education be taught in a biblical atmosphere? Because if the point of the class is to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs, it sounds like a yes.

Government should protect the family unit from being destroyed if they meet some success and moral laws often are health and safety laws.

How can a government discourage unhealthy lifestyles outside of God's plan without always using religion, such as sexual immorality? What can other arguments for social conservatism be made?

Are there secular arguments in favor of blasphemy laws, such as cursing the Judeo-Christian God or a deist diety? How about laws governing one's modesty preventing nudity or saying women can't wear pants unless they are for jeans or work relating usage they must where a dress or skirt or some shorts?

workers do enjoy getting days off such as an allowing a period of rest every 7th day and workers getting off on holidays

How can the government protect the family from being destroyed in your opinions ?

By leaving people the hell alone so they can find their own happiness in whatever "family" structure they choose. Unhealthy obsessions about exposed human skin and strong language, particularly when they come from the government, do sweet fuck all to protect families. P.S. I am not wearing pants.

[The Rich Port]

What secular arguments agianst public nudity, profanity, and other agendas of social conservatism to protect family values?

If I weren't that religious and in my nation-state, I would still ban some religions such as satanism and some occult practices. Because while people will praise and criticize religion, a religion of pure evil without disguise would still be a bad influence on any society. https://assets.grammarly.com/emoji/v1/1f4a1.svg

What are the advantages of being catholic vs. evangelical Protestantism? Can sex education be taught in a biblical atmosphere? Because if the point of the class is to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs, it sounds like a yes.

Government should protect the family unit from being destroyed if they meet some success and moral laws often are health and safety laws.

How can a government discourage unhealthy lifestyles outside of God's plan without always using religion, such as sexual immorality? What can other arguments for social conservatism be made?

Are there secular arguments in favor of blasphemy laws, such as cursing the Judeo-Christian God or a deist diety? How about laws governing one's modesty preventing nudity or saying women can't wear pants unless they are for jeans or work relating usage they must where a dress or skirt or some shorts?

workers do enjoy getting days off such as an allowing a period of rest every 7th day and workers getting off on holidays

How can the government protect the family from being destroyed in your opinions ?

By leaving people the hell alone so they can find their own happiness in whatever "family" structure they choose. Unhealthy obsessions about exposed human skin and strong language, particularly when they come from the government, do sweet fuck all to protect families. P.S. I am not wearing pants.

One can only hope you're NOT thinking of the children at this time

Badum tsh,

[Myrensis]

Is general opposition to public nudity really a 'socially conservative' thing?

Are there a bunch of liberals out there I don't know about arguing that when they leave their houses they just want to see wall to wall tits and dongs?

[Ethel mermania]

The Vanderbilts, the astors, and all the other robber barons were buying politicians long before Barry goldwater was on the scene

Yet clearly modern society has supercharged it. And libertarianism helped pave the way for that.

No, and I don't think you are American so it would be unreasonable to expect you to know 19th century American history

do some research on the robber barons of the gilded age. In American history the power of the wealthy was much greater than it was now. Because mass markets were still in development it didn't seem that way across the country. But in terms of concentration of economic and political power, Carnegie and morgan welded far more power than Musk.

[Hukhalia]

Is general opposition to public nudity really a 'socially conservative' thing?

Are there a bunch of liberals out there I don't know about arguing that when they leave their houses they just want to see wall to wall tits and dongs?

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

[Ethel mermania]

Is general opposition to public nudity really a 'socially conservative' thing?

Are there a bunch of liberals out there I don't know about arguing that when they leave their houses they just want to see wall to wall tits and dongs?

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

At places like public beaches you would see it. Full body tans are neat.
Anyone riding a subway naked is insane.

( full disclosure: no pants subway day is a riot). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Subway_Ride

[Hukhalia]

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

At places like public beaches you would see it. Full body tans are neat.
Anyone riding a subway naked is insane.

( full disclosure: no pants subway day is a riot). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Subway_Ride

americans never cease to amaze in the most... visceral of ways

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Is general opposition to public nudity really a 'socially conservative' thing?

Are there a bunch of liberals out there I don't know about arguing that when they leave their houses they just want to see wall to wall tits and dongs?

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

It only takes a few people engaging in it to at best distract a lot of people, and at worst to arouse a lot of people to the point of impaired judgment. Arousal already impaired judgment to the point of people doing in their teen years things that could ruin their own lives. It could impair judgment again.

[The Alma Mater]

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

It only takes a few people engaging in it to at best distract a lot of people, and at worst to arouse a lot of people to the point of impaired judgment. Arousal already impaired judgment to the point of people doing in their teen years things that could ruin their own lives. It could impair judgment again.

That is the exact same argument used to force women to wear burqas in certain countries.
Are conservatives in favour of that ?

[The free romanians]

Depends on the question
Secular arguments as in non religious one
Or secularist arguments that makes an conservative secularist power couple

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It only takes a few people engaging in it to at best distract a lot of people, and at worst to arouse a lot of people to the point of impaired judgment. Arousal already impaired judgment to the point of people doing in their teen years things that could ruin their own lives. It could impair judgment again.

That is the exact same argument used to force women to wear burqas in certain countries.
Are conservatives in favour of that ?

A: The right to show off one's face has proven itself manageable in society, whereas the right to show off one's naked body has not. Almost as if faces, while they can be beautiful, appeal more to the emotions and less directly to primal animal instincts.

B: The right to put one's face on public display is seen as so sacrosanct that even the most immediately obvious life and death reasons to restrict it; like, let's say, a pandemic; has failed to make a dent in the belief of tens of millions of people that it's absolute.

So yeah. There is a tradeoff, but obviously one needs to draw the line somewhere, and drawing the line somewhere doesn't mean it has to be at "no clothing at all."

EDIT: I'm not even sure whether or not I count as a "conservative" or anything like that; I support public healthcare and often vote NDP; I just happen to be more in favour of dress codes and the like than popular opinion as a whole, much less the leftmost factions of it in particular.

[Partybus]

I mean the only thing worth saying is that if public nudity was legal very few people would engage in it lol

At places like public beaches you would see it. Full body tans are neat.
Anyone riding a subway naked is insane.

( full disclosure: no pants subway day is a riot). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Subway_Ride

Vermont welcomes you
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/wtf ... id=2804753
And...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride