Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservative Utopianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Just as change for the sake of change is not always beneficial.
    Conservatives may be seen as suffering from nostalgia, liberals seem to celebrate perversity.
    I certainly agree that change for the sake of change is foolish or perhaps more to the point, often liberals seems to imagine that every problem requires or can be solved by a governmental response, but "perversity"!!? Perhaps it follows in binary US politics. If the conservatives are for "family values" it must mean that "liberals" are for perversion. If liberals are for personal freedom of lifestyle, conservative must mean repression, theocracy and fascism. It must be all or nothing.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
      I certainly agree that change for the sake of change is foolish or perhaps more to the point, often liberals seems to imagine that every problem requires or can be solved by a governmental response, but "perversity"!!? Perhaps it follows in binary US politics. If the conservatives are for "family values" it must mean that "liberals" are for perversion. If liberals are for personal freedom of lifestyle, conservative must mean repression, theocracy and fascism. It must be all or nothing.
      We call it diversity today. I doubt the great liberals of the 1930s and 40s would approve of the public displays of sexuality that are common today, even those who were considered the most progressive would be appalled.
      The idea that there should be zero restrictions on any behavior at anytime by anyone is not a traditional liberal view, but it is now.
      This is not about continuing predjudice. But the example of S.F.s mayor banning public employees from traveling to North Carolina because that state would not support "gender neutral public restrooms" is a good one.
      On our last trip to S.F. we witnessed people deficating in the street, used hypodermic needles in the gutter. San Francisco has been a liberal haven for 50 years or more, if that is the liberal idea of utopia, leave me out.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
        We call it diversity today. I doubt the great liberals of the 1930s and 40s would approve of the public displays of sexuality that are common today, even those who were considered the most progressive would be appalled.
        The idea that there should be zero restrictions on any behavior at anytime by anyone is not a traditional liberal view, but it is now.
        This is not about continuing predjudice. But the example of S.F.s mayor banning public employees from traveling to North Carolina because that state would not support "gender neutral public restrooms" is a good one.
        On our last trip to S.F. we witnessed people deficating in the street, used hypodermic needles in the gutter. San Francisco has been a liberal haven for 50 years or more, if that is the liberal idea of utopia, leave me out.
        I agree...S.F. is a dump but I always felt it was a real shame. The natural setting of the city is great, the climate pretty nice etc but the people are awful. I lived in California most of my life and I don't think I've ever met a person from the Bay Area who was worth 2 cents. I can't say they are all terrible people but I can state as fact that all the ones I've ever met are.

        The ban on travel to North Carolina is pretty hollow in my opinion: I think it must only apply to official city business and seriously how many employees of the city of S.F. ever have a need to go to the Carolinas for business? Maybe an occasional convention or seminar but otherwise I can't imagine it comes up too often.

        Reminds me also of the situation in Georgia. All the corporations threatening to pull business from GA over the religious freedom deal: apparently if you have religious belief that being gay or at least being gay and married is wrong, immoral or whatever, these corporations feel you shouldn't believe that way. They feel you should be forced to perform wedding ceremonies that run contrary to your religious beliefs. I personally don't care if gay people get married but why can't they get married in a church that welcomes them? Why do they feel it's necessary to force a church to perform a service that goes against their beliefs? Not sure if I'm comfortable with this idea--the argument that 'next thing they'll refuse to marry blacks' is stupid and is just another liberal tactic. The real issue to me is do we force people to act contrary to their religious beliefs, and if so where do we stop?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          We call it diversity today. I doubt the great liberals of the 1930s and 40s would approve of the public displays of sexuality that are common today, even those who were considered the most progressive would be appalled.
          The idea that there should be zero restrictions on any behavior at anytime by anyone is not a traditional liberal view, but it is now.
          This is not about continuing predjudice. But the example of S.F.s mayor banning public employees from traveling to North Carolina because that state would not support "gender neutral public restrooms" is a good one.
          On our last trip to S.F. we witnessed people deficating in the street, used hypodermic needles in the gutter. San Francisco has been a liberal haven for 50 years or more, if that is the liberal idea of utopia, leave me out.
          It isn't the place of the state to legislate morality. It also isn't the place of the state to force people to go against their religious beliefs.

          Somehow we need to find a way to educate people that doesn't rely on religious dogma. The real issue for society is the failure of relationships wether they be gay or hetrosexual. Stable relationships not only reduce promiscuity they provide a domesticating influence that reduces drug use and promotes social integration and work ethics.

          The benefits to childern of growing up in a two parent household are no longer debatable. If the sexual revolution had not been closely associated with hedonism it could have been a force for good in society. While women's rights are an important civil rights issue the effect of government programs has been to weaken the motivations for forming lasting partnerships between the sexs. This is true especially for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and their already vulnerable childern.

          IQ is closely associated not only with economic success but also with successful marriages. What the higher IQ individuals know instinctual in so far as a loving monogamous sexual relationship is the most rewarding way of life we can surely teach to those less fortunate. Instead we allow radical feminism to spread hate and discord and ruin the lives of millions.

          There will always be malcontents who elect to live a hedonistic life style it is best to simply ignore them. Any form of social censure needs to be carefully considered. For the most part it is the success of the relationships of the majority that will have the greatest influence.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X