What is it with Regressive Conservatives anyways?

Post Reply New Topic

That's asinine people are expected to act on their attractions there is no justification for expecting Homosexuals to treat their physical impulses any differently than Heterosexuals.(aka the same laws of consent and such) Also it doesn't matter how many religions condemn it Inuyasha this is America religions are not to dictate our laws in that manner. This is not a matter of slippery slope, all people have the same rights anything less is Unamerican. Also I wouldn't think you would be encouraging peoples discomfort at someone or something factoring into whether or not something should be allowed seeing as how your always defending beck.(Whom many find objectionable)

As for the hate crime comments it depends on whether or not they are calling for violence against Homosexuals. As for civil unions the supreme court has ruled separate but equal invalid.

Heterosexual behavior is kind of essential to continue the species. I am against gay marriage if it is called gay marriage or marriage in general, I'm not saying gays should be locked up in prison or something. The thing with legalizing it (by it I mean gay marriage) is that it opens pastors, priests, rabbi, etc. to being charged with hate crimes and I would argue is religious persecution. If they can come up with a way to call it something else you would find it would meet with a lot less opposition.

Another thing to consider is that it can then be used to legalize other things such as pedophilia, polygamy, etc. One can argue that people are born having an attraction to children and shouldn't be penalized for it. Common sense would argue it is not an equivalent, but politicians and lawyers aren't known for common sense.



How was it written though, I could argue that you could use the term "civil union" and then write in the legislation that for the rights, responsibilities, whatever look under 'marriage' might actually work.

@ Orwell
The debate on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot. We're currently in Iraq so we made a mess when we took down Saddam, we should make sure we clean up after ourselves and not leave a power vacuum.

Talk about painting all with the same brush. You really think that all poor people live in the "ghetto"? You think poverty is exclusively a problem with urban black culture? You're the one being ignorant and offensive when you make the issue of poverty into a race issue. You'd be surprised how many young college graduates there are these days living on food stamps. Yea, it's all the "ghetto" mentality.

And I reserve the right to be conversationally intolerant when your ideas are freaking bigoted and offensive. Tough luck. Shove it.

No it doesn't they can decline to marry a gay couple on the basis of the first amendment. How would you argue it as religious persecution? I told you there is no justification for separate but equal in American law.



How so? It changes nothing regarding pedophilia children still won't be able to consent, and politicians have no interest in legalizing pedophilia the majority most certainly do not want it.(I have no idea why you listed lawyers they don't have the power to circumvent age of consent of laws, neither do judges just in case your confused.) As for polygamy what business is it of ours if people want to organize their household with more than two adults? Besides there are already relationships with more than two adults they just have no way to marry. I can't address etcetera.



You could argue but it still wouldn't be acceptable under the American legal system. Also what happens if a new government comes into power and decides to start removing the rights given for civil unions, much easier if they are already divided. If you really don't understand the weaknesses of separate but equal maybe you should google up a history lesson.

Conservatives don't want government calling it "marriage" because they don't want government giving homosexual unions the same level of legitimacy as heterosexuals unions. However, it isn't the government's role to decide what is and isn't legitimate in terms of social conventions. Either government stops recognizing heterosexual unions as a special type of privileged arrangement or they offer the same privilege to homosexual couples. Anything less is government sanctioned bigotry.

Also, your statement "heterosexual behovior is kind of essential to continue the species" has no bearing on the argument. It's not as if accepting homosexuality is going to suddenly turn heterosexuals gay. Sexual orientation is largely something you are born with.

I have personal experience with the culture he is referring too, it does exist, it is a problem.(I have no idea what he means by low tolerance for frustration I never noticed anything like that) I also have experience with the entitlement attitude he is referring to which is also present in suburban areas(of several ethnicities). I also find it odd that you imply that ghetto and college graduate are exclusive. Depending on the family the attitude he is referring to is either condemned, ignored, or encouraged. It didn't exist on my fathers or mothers side of the family, but it did in some of my friend's families.(both black and white)

I never denied that cultural problems exist. I've seen it too. However I still think it's offensive to apply a broad brush smear of all poor people. The problem of poverty is far broader than right-wing social darwinists will admit. There are people receiving government assistance for all kinds of reasons. Many people have health issues that prevent them from working full time. In the current economy a lot of people simply can't find full time employment. Others have crippling medical expenses.

Yes rampant was a bit much. But he is right about the difficulty of dealing with those kind of people. It seems once it weakens them the only way out is for them to want out which annoys me because acquiring that view point itself usually eliminates that kind of desire. But he acknowledges this. I also feel I should point out that besides scale, and your interpretation of ghetto meaning black, no bigotry has been shown. He never mentioned black people and arguably never implied it either. If he contends the point the only logical conclusion is you imposed racially bigoted motives on him with no justification.

I just noticed this was a parody of another thread. Party or ideology, I still find such polemics to be the intellectual equivalent of junkfood.

No, you do not.
I guess you opposed all of US' "liberation" wars then..

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 02 Jan 2011, 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem is it's an offensive generalization to call all poor people lazy. It's a fallacious rationalization. It's an insult to the all the people who are not lazy but are poor through no fault of their own. I think it's pretty disgusting that people have to make these rationalizations to insulate their conscience.

Alright.



I'd largely agree with that senitment.



I didn't say the Duke Lacrosse case wasn't significant because all politically-motivate prosecutions are a travesty. I did, however, say that it's selection for media attention and the fact books were written on it do show a selection bias in America when it comes to talking about wrongful convictions, as countless prosecutors pull similar nonsense against poorer Americans (many minorities) without a media firestorm, rather getting the approving label that they're "touch on crime" or believe in "law and order politics".



The myth that Obama was born in Kenya is base largely on appearance, and while the more conservative Democrat in the primary may have had deranged backers who believed this myth, it's still more widespread among the Tea Party crowd and conservatives. Certainly, Slick Hillie never suggested pandered to the myth to the extent a handful of congressional Republicans have. 41% of Tea Partisans (plus or minus 3%), for instance, believe that Obama wasn't born in America, while 30% (plus or minus 3%) believe he was born in Kenya.




Technically speaking, my claim made no inference whatsoever regarding whether the hereditary rich constitute a majority of the rich. What I said is that the conservatives in America leap over backwards to defend them, against progressive taxation or an estate tax. I’d further like to add that a large subset of the nova rich activity you’re talking about came from the rather parasitic games many financial industry CEOs played.

As for the hereditary rich, some of them are increasing their wealth (even if they’re being outdone my innovations – bubble fuelled or otherwise – in finance and high-tech industries).
To quote thiswiki article (there is a primary source, if you desire to check it, listed in the footnote of this post)

“In 60 years, four of the richest families in the United States increased their combined $2–$4 billion in 1937 to $38 billion without holding large shares in emerging industries.”



It’s amazing how you could somehow forget the boyish salivating Matthews did over Dubya in a fighter suite. Karl Rove couldn’t have come up with a better piece of propaganda than that. Never mind the fact that Matthews cast his ballot for the incompetent.



The may problem, aside being a ploy on your infantile defence of the chalkboard conspiracist, was to show you the juvenility of the Conservative Press in America attacking a serious condition.



This is rich, given nothing was really conspiratorial in my analysis of the ultraconservative movement in America.

FOOTNOTE
Phillips, Kevin. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. Westminster, Md: Broadway Books, 2003, p. 116

I grew up in one of the poorest urban neighborhoods in Canada - Winnipeg's North End. In a rather comically typical fashion, you seem to be confusing the symptoms of poverty for the causes of it. While there are a subset of people incompetent and inanately parasitic enough to fall even from the upper-middle rungs of the social ladder into poverty, they are the exception and not the rule.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZqfB6DdZPs[/youtube]

People deserve a treat every once and a while.

As a societal issue I'd say it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. As for people falling down the social ladder, what you say is probably more true for Canada than here in the US. Here it is very possible to become poor through no fault of your own. Medical bankruptcies drive people into poverty all the time.

Eh, he didn't completely generalize he just made a claim about a subset of poor people while implying that subset was the vast majority. He was correct about the subset existing he was incorrect however about the percentage that subset makes out of its superset(?). Also how do you think this rationalization helps his conscience?(basically what other personality traits are you preemptively imposing on him.) I noticed you made no apologies for imposing racism on his arguments.