Secular arguments for social conservatism

[Ethel mermania]

Not at all, liberals are generally in favor of government regulation.

I suppose it depends on which definition of liberalism you prefer.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
https://iep.utm.edu/polphil/#SH3a

Its also a problem how conservativism is defined. In America the conservative position has been taken over by the religious right.

You can talk to 10 people and get 10 different definitions of conservative, and liberal

[Moroniland]

Its also a problem how conservativism is defined. In America the conservative position has been taken over by the religious right.

You can talk to 10 people and get 10 different definitions of conservative, and liberal

I think we can get a pretty clear idea if we put the terms in context.

In the context of Western political philosophy, liberalism is a category of ideologies that profess to give people freedom. Giving people freedom is the liberal thing to do. Conservatism, in this same context of Western political philosophy, is a category of ideologies concerned with preserving the institutions and values of the past against usurpation and destructive change. Thus, every place on Earth will have a different conservatism depending on what institutions and values it had in the past. A conservative Saudi Arabian for example will have very little in common with a conservative American, because conservatism in Saudi Arabia means conserving the institutions and values of Saudi Arabia while conservatism in America means conserving the institutions and values of America. This is different from how liberalism in political philosophy works, because liberalism in political philosophy is ultimately the same everywhere, only differing in degree, not kind, from liberalism in other places.

In the context of American (U.S.) politics, conservatism is a specific political movement that originated in the 1950s led for the most part by William F. Buckley and his National Review magazine. This movement is concerned with preserving the institutions and values of America, which are liberal institutions and liberal values because that is America's history. So American conservatism isn't necessarily opposed to liberalism in the political philosophy sense. But American conservatism is opposed to American "liberalism" which in any other country would most likely be called "social progressivism" or somesuch, as the aims of this American "liberalism" are for a reform of societal institutions and values in the name of being more just or equitable. So American 'liberalism" is really a misnomer, not because its adherents are necessarily "anti-freedom" but because its aims are for justice and/or equality first and foremost.

[Ethel mermania]

Its also a problem how conservativism is defined. In America the conservative position has been taken over by the religious right.

You can talk to 10 people and get 10 different definitions of conservative, and liberal

I think we can get a pretty clear idea if we put the terms in context.

In the context of Western political philosophy, liberalism is a category of ideologies that profess to give people freedom. Giving people freedom is the liberal thing to do. Conservatism, in this same context of Western political philosophy, is a category of ideologies concerned with preserving the institutions and values of the past against usurpation and destructive change. Thus, every place on Earth will have a different conservatism depending on what institutions and values it had in the past. A conservative Saudi Arabian for example will have very little in common with a conservative American, because conservatism in Saudi Arabia means conserving the institutions and values of Saudi Arabia while conservatism in America means conserving the institutions and values of America. This is different from liberalism, which is the ultimately the same everywhere, only differing in degree, not kind, from liberalism in other places.

In the context of American (U.S.) politics, conservatism is a specific political movement that originated in the 1950s led for the most part by William F. Buckley and his National Review magazine. This movement is concerned with preserving the institutions and values of America, which are liberal institutions and liberal values because that is America's history. So American conservatism isn't necessarily opposed to liberalism in the political philosophy sense. But American conservatism is opposed to American "liberalism" which in any other country would most likely be called "social progressivism" or somesuch, as its aims of this American "liberalism" are for a reform of societal institutions and values in the name of being more just or equitable.

You need to go much further back than wild bill. The isolationist and free silver movements go back to the late 1800's.

Also social justice is the antithesis of individual rights, so to that point i agree

[Moroniland]

You need to go much further back than wild bill. The isolationist and free silver movements go back to the late 1800's.

But that's not who the conservatives of America that controlled the Republican party from the 1980s to the 2010s are. They have a free online course on who they are if you're interested.

Also I made some edits to my previous post in the interests of being more fair to American "liberals"

[Ethel mermania]

You need to go much further back than wild bill. The isolationist and free silver movements go back to the late 1800's.

But that's not who the conservatives of America that controlled the Republican party from the 1980s to the 2010s are. They have a free online course on who they are if you're interested.

I am drinking mohito's. So not the right time for that.

We are not talking about the party per se, but arguements that can be made for secular conservativism.

The 80's party is pretty split between the eastern and western wings of the party, with the religious right poisoning the western wing

[Confederate Farmers]

There aren't many, and for good reason.

I said there aren't any: not even one. But that's because everything is permissible if there is no God.

Social conservatism isn't even a consistent belief set over time;

This is undoubtedly true. But the same is true of social liberalism. Social conservatism gets more moderate over time, while social liberalism gets more extreme over time.

it has lost almost every major battle its fought with social liberalism and continually has to draw new lines in the sand.

And, unless you're cool with things related to sex that I would probably get banned for mentioning again, someday you will be on the other side of the desk.

It needs to die and stay dead already.

Give it a few years, and you'll be against whatever the next generation or two is doing because it doesn't match the mores of your generation.

Amen!
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage. Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people. When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism. I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.

If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president. Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows.



Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.

[Moroniland]

Amen!
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage. Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people. When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism. I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.

If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president. Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows.



Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.

I think what you're saying here more or less reflects what my views on these issues were about ten years ago. Since that time, events have developed which have persuaded me of the utter falsehood of the American democratic political system. I believe that the basic problem of our age cannot be addressed through democratic means because our elections -- all of them -- are fake. For example, in a real election, nothing like the systematic intentional malicious suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story that occurred in October 2020 would be possible because we'd have a real free press and while the left leaning press would be able to spin it for damage control in a genuine free election campaign, they wouldn't be able to entirely suppress it like they did. This level of information control shows that Google, Facebook and Twitter have more power over our elections than Pulitzer and Hearst ever dreamed of. So there will be no solution forthcoming from any political party to return us to basic sanity any time soon. I expect things to escalate and escalate until all genuine political dissent is driven underground and only controlled opposition guaranteed to always lose in the end remains. We may win elections but we will never, ever win issues, so none of it matters. No matter what we do, there is no positive outlook for our civilization, at least not at the global or federal levels, at this point

[Necroghastia]

I said there aren't any: not even one. But that's because everything is permissible if there is no God.
This is undoubtedly true. But the same is true of social liberalism. Social conservatism gets more moderate over time, while social liberalism gets more extreme over time.
And, unless you're cool with things related to sex that I would probably get banned for mentioning again, someday you will be on the other side of the desk.
Give it a few years, and you'll be against whatever the next generation or two is doing because it doesn't match the mores of your generation.

Amen!
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage.

since when did christianity have a monopoly on marriage lmao
also how does gay people getting married impact you in any way at all?

Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people.

how?

When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism.

examples?

I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, why not call it a duck?
if you proposed to someone would you want to say "will you civilly unionize with me" lmfao

If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president.

good

Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows.

lmfao what
that makes no sense if you have any idea of how the world actually works at all lmao

Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.

you're god damn right it is

[Moroniland]

since when did christianity have a monopoly on marriage lmao

It wasn't the Hindu rules on sexuality and marriage which the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s were revolting against. I mean come on, we didn't just make up the history of America in the 20th century. It seems like you're being intentionally dense here, pretending to not understand and know something you absolutely do understand and know.

also how does gay people getting married impact you in any way at all?

See the ongoing attempts to compel creative artwork supporting "gay marriage" at the point of a policeman's gun: the Jack Phillips case.

examples?

Engel v. Vitale, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are some really obvious landmark cases that overrode the democratic process to force Leftist social policy on a public who had specifically voted against it.

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, why not call it a duck?

Because it actually looks, sounds and acts a lot more like a camel than like a duck. One that, if we let its nose under the tent, will bring in a lot more mass than just a duck would.

if you proposed to someone would you want to say "will you civilly unionize with me" lmfao

Atheism is lame, isn't it. Not very romantic to just copulate with another soulless husk of carbon beneath an empty sky on a pointless accident of a planet.

[Confederate Farmers]

I support either 2 things the government should refrain from lobbying and have a non-aggression principle or it should support family values.

If the government seeks to be more active then it should enforce social conservative values such as no porn. I am a devolution activist and I hope the states and local governments to be more active. I support separation between church and state, but I let my faith influence my politics rather the other way around. Abortion is a secular human right, not an exclusive religious moral

To name an instance of judicial activism woe vs wade. The constitution has to be followed strictly I don't support prohibition,but I understand people meant well.

[Necroghastia]

since when did christianity have a monopoly on marriage lmao

It wasn't the Hindu rules on sexuality and marriage which the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s were revolting against. I mean come on, we didn't just make up the history of America in the 20th century. It seems like you're being intentionally dense here, pretending to not understand and know something you absolutely do understand and know.

it seems like you didn't read what i was replying to and/or are being as intentionally dense as you claim me to be

also how does gay people getting married impact you in any way at all?

See the ongoing attempts to compel creative artwork supporting "gay marriage" at the point of a policeman's gun: the Jack Phillips case.

does not answer my question. how does gay marriage in itself impact joe cishet avereage

Engel v. Vitale, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are some really obvious landmark cases that overrode the democratic process to force Leftist social policy on a public who had specifically voted against it.

had the public voted on those? also how is expanding rights (and in the first case, explicitly stopping a policy from being forced on a public) "forcing policy" lmfao

Because it actually looks, sounds and acts a lot more like a camel than like a duck.

lol how

Atheism is lame, isn't it. Not very romantic to just copulate with another empty hunk of carbon beneath an empty sky on a pointless accident of a planet.

my buddyguy you're the one that apparently thinks meaning and fulfillment can only be found through some old book and we're incapable of finding those things ourselves

[Necroghastia]

I support either 2 things the government should refrain from lobbying and have a non-aggression principle or it should support family values.

whose family, though?

If the government seeks to be more active then it should enforce social conservative values such as no porn.

you say below the constitution has to be followed strictly; that means YES porn

To name an instance of judicial activism woe vs wade. The constitution has to be followed strictly I don't support prohibition,but I understand people meant well.

what makes that judicial activism?

[Moroniland]

I support either 2 things the government should refrain from lobbying and have a non-aggression principle or it should support family values.

I am inclined towards the latter because it seems evident that we're headed for an absolute hell where children are ultimately forced into sex slavery under America's present brand of liberalism.

If the government seeks to be more active then it should enforce social conservative values such as no porn.

There certainly are difficulties with criminalizing porn, but not as bad as the difficulties with the current system.

I support separation between church and state,

I support a separation between the state and sectarian divisions between different groups of Christians. That's as far as I'm willing to go on this.

Abortion is a secular human right, not an exclusive religious moral

Abortion is murder and it's ridiculous to call murder a "right"

The constitution has to be followed strictly

The reality is that the Constitution hasn't worked. It worked for a while, but it doesn't work anymore. It isn't that if we just straightened up and returned to following the Constitution then everything would be fine. The Constitution itself lacks the guard rails necessary to have prevented our current predicament even if we did follow it.

[Necroghastia]

I support either 2 things the government should refrain from lobbying and have a non-aggression principle or it should support family values.

I am inclined towards the latter because it seems evident that we're headed for an absolute hell where children are ultimately forced into sex slavery under America's present brand of liberalism.

literally how lmfao

Abortion is a secular human right, not an exclusive religious moral

Abortion is murder and it's ridiculous to call murder a "right"

it's absolutely not, for reasons that have been covered countless times in the abortion thread

[Moroniland]

whose family, though?

I think he's referring to pronatalist policy for all, not race-specific.

you say below the constitution has to be followed strictly; that means YES porn

You are correct here. Constitutionalism xor anti-porn. Pick one or neither, not both.

what makes that judicial activism?

We know that the Constitution doesn't have the word "abortion" in it and doesn't address the issue and we know what the Constitution says about issues which it doesn't address. (the Tenth Amendment) So under a strict reading of the Constitution, the SCOTUS would be obligated to rule that the Tenth Amendment says that the states can do whatever they want unless the Constitution specifically says they can't and it doesn't specifically address abortion, so the states can make their own laws for or against abortion until and unless the Constitution is amended to address abortion. Ruling on an issue the Constitution doesn't address is bypassing the amendment process. (which is why you haven't seen any amendments being seriously considered in many years: the amendment process has been bypassed)

To have made up a completely nonsensical bogus "emanation from penumbra" to pretend that the Constitution addresses abortion when everyone knows it doesn't as Roe v. Wade did was dishonest, arbitrary, anti-democratic (because it was an unelected body overturning a law passed by an elected body) and yes, activist because it was making up what the judges thought the law should be instead of ruling on what the law is.

[Moroniland]

In my previous post, I laid out the standard Republican Constitutionalist argument about Roe v. Wade and judicial activism. And that's all true, but none of it matters.

None of it matters because it is an argument from paper law. It's about what the words on the paper say. No one is ever actually governed by paper law. People are governed by actual governments and actual governments follow the Golden Rule: "Whoever Has the Gold Makes the Rules."

So it really doesn't matter what the Constitution says or doesn't say. The Constitution in the 21st century is a fiction designed to get you to donate money to Republican political candidates. It's painful, but you have to let it go if you're ever going to address the way things really are.

[Moroniland]

By the way, I really admire the framers of the Constitution. They were blessed with a great deal of political wisdom to address the problems of the 18th and 19th centuries. But not the problems of the 20th or 21st centuries. Their system expected a basic level of honesty and decency from people which just hasn't been the case.

[Frisemark]

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

You do realize most modern forms of Satanism aren’t some “sacrifice babies and bathe in their blood” or something, yeah?

[Confederate Farmers]

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

You do realize most modern forms of Satanism aren’t some “sacrifice babies and bathe in their blood” or something, yeah?

How many anti-abortionists do you know that belong to the satanist temple? Well sacrificing human life is murder and yes I know. compulsory vaccines could also be apart of social conservatism as its a health laws and it discourages cults. Science goes supports much of the laws in the Torah and no where in the scripture does it say the earth is 10,000 years old nor do we know how long the day was.

Much of the bible is a spiritual book and less a historical book as the focus is spirituality rather than every historical detail. Article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/genesis- ... 63gt2jcad4

However as a compromise to the abrhamic faith the penntuach (torah )would be taught in the public schools

intellectual design
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2 ... cation.uk1

While i think the class should still count as a religion rather than science I do think the subject would have logical arguments and scientific data likely pointing to a higher power science can neither prove nor disprove God. Albert einstein thought a personal God was pety ,but he was smart enough to realize of a higher power and while not a bad imorhuman being isn't the depiction of morality

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Amen!
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage. Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people. When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism. I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.

If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president. Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows.



Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.

what is "government same-sex marriage"? is that where a government marries another of the same gender?

basically your point is "oh my god gay people exist and people are talking about them, so the mean democrats are trying to force us to be gay! I don't want things to be forced on me! we need to oppose gay marriage to end coercion!"

[Kowani]

if a couple of lesbians from boston can be major backers of the John Birch Society (and they were), it should be easy enough to understand that the key of social conservatism isn't actually about the arguments laid out in its defense-its about preserving the social order as currently constituted

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

You do realize most modern forms of Satanism aren’t some “sacrifice babies and bathe in their blood” or something, yeah?

How many anti-abortionists do you know that belong to the satanist temple? Well sacrificing human life is murder and yes I know. compulsory vaccines could also be apart of social conservatism as its a health laws and it discourages cults. Science goes supports much of the laws in the Torah and no where in the scripture does it say the earth is 10,000 years old nor do we know how long the day was.

Much of the bible is a spiritual book and less a historical book as the focus is spirituality rather than every historical detail. Article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/genesis- ... 63gt2jcad4

However as a compromise to the abrhamic faith the penntuach (torah )would be taught in the public schools

intellectual design
While i think the class should still count as a religion rather than science I do think the subject would have logical arguments and scientific data likely pointing to a higher power science can neither prove nor disprove God. Albert einstein thought a personal God was pety ,but he was smart enough to realize of a higher power and while not a bad imorhuman being isn't the depiction of morality

all they were saying was that satanism is more of an atheist movement, not actual devil worship or whatever. whether religion is true or not is besides the point.

[Confederate Farmers]

Amen!
The left is insane with their social liberalist agenda of forcing their beliefs on other people; it's absurd. I was only ranked a libertarian on a quiz when I opposed government same-sex marriage. Evangelicals and I almost want to say Christians should oppose government same-sex marriage because unless the government is going to return marriage to the churches, it is an example of the government actively endorsing homosexuality by changing the definition of marriage. Furthermore, those groups aren't satisfied when agreeing to leave the individual alone they prefer active lobbying forcing their corrupted morality on other people. When Congress or the states won't do something the left will cheat through judicial activism. I would favor something like a domestic partnership or civil union that is something like a business pack where 2 males agree to be responsible for each other that isn't necessarily homosexual.

If i ran for president while I hate porn there's nothing or onley little i can do to oppose it as president. Liberals now wish to indocranate children with homosexuality through books and tv shows and in education



Transgendersim for children use to be seen as child abuse now its a human right to a demcrate.

what is "government same-sex marriage"? is that where a government marries another of the same gender?

basically your point is "oh my god gay people exist and people are talking about them, so the mean democrats are trying to force us to be gay! I don't want things to be forced on me! we need to oppose gay marriage to end coercion!"

No that’s not what I’m sayingn it hasn’t been a problem for over 100 years that marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Homosexuality was kept taboo for the the longest time and even outlawed. If gay people if that’s all they wanted to was to get married and I am fine with then I would bring the government out of marriage. Now if we’re gonna have same sex marriage and on the logic of love is love then I’ll kinds of other bad marriages will be there and I’m not gonna debate the morality of either. Bad marriages such as consenting incest marriage, polygamy, Polandrey and arguably underage marriages .

Well if we’re gonna debate morality on marriage then it comes from religion. Outside morality from religion it becomes relative. Marriage is all about a covenant and that’s about it raising children and loving your spouse from the religious perspective

Well the LGBT pride month is an example of government forcing its agenda how they want to have state and local and federal governments to accommodate . Anyway let’s get off more current politics. It is also true that LGBQ has more members depending on how the society supported it.

It is true that some governments outlaw the practice but we do not receive a massive execution or incarceration rate of homosexuals or in Saudi Arabia. Well it is true the outlaw of the practice helps the society ,but Even if not outlawed many societies including Saudi Arabia would be strongly against it .

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

what is "government same-sex marriage"? is that where a government marries another of the same gender?

basically your point is "oh my god gay people exist and people are talking about them, so the mean democrats are trying to force us to be gay! I don't want things to be forced on me! we need to oppose gay marriage to end coercion!"

No that’s not what I’m sayingn it hasn’t been a problem for over 100 years that marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Homosexuality was kept taboo for the the longest time and even outlawed. If gay people if that’s all they wanted to was to get married and I am fine with that as I would bring the government out of marriage. Now if we’re gonna have same sex marriage and on the logic of love is love then I’ll kinds of other bad marriages will be there and I’m not gonna debate the morality of either. Bad marriages such as consenting incest marriage, polygamy, Polandrey.

Well the LGBT pride month is an example of government forcing its agenda how they want to have state and local and federal governments to accommodate . Anyway let’s get off more current politics. It is also true that LGBQ has more members depending on how the society supported it.

It is true that some governments outlaw the practice but we do not receive a massive execution or incarceration rate like in Saudi Arabia. Well it is true the outlaw of the practice helps both the society Even if not outlawed would be strongly against it.

"it's been this way for a long time" is not a good argument for anything. there is nothing inherently or logically amoral about gay marriage. there is something inherently amoral about those other kinds of marriage.

LGBT pride month is not forcing anyone to do anything at all, no more than you are forced to celebrate Thanksgiving.

[Space Squid]

if a couple of lesbians from boston can be major backers of the John Birch Society (and they were), it should be easy enough to understand that the key of social conservatism isn't actually about the arguments laid out in its defense-its about preserving the social order as currently constituted

Which is the problem with making this argument now. Because social conservatism today (in the United States at least) isn't about preserving the social order.

Conservatives are actively undermining important pillars of the social order, and lashing out madly against the majority views.