How can any aspie be socially conservative?
Actually social conservatism and fiscal conservatism tie together. The idea with social conservatism is personal responsibility (that includes if you get a woman pregnent you shouldn't ditch the girl cause you don't want to deal with the responsiblity of raising a child), where as social liberalism talks of moral relativism and Government being in charge. Fiscal Conservatism is based on the social conservative principles of personal responsibility that Government shouldn't be a nanny state.
That is one reason why I am against abortion, because it is being used as birth control because two people can't keep their stuff in their pants. Abortion just encourages more of that behavior.
No thinking person embraces moral relativism. It only makes sense if evil is understood as on a continuum. On one side would be wrongs that are consistently and universally recognized to be abhorrent (those that are unforgiveable). Towards the middle would be immorality that is still forgivable, such as theft. Far on the other side would be lack of self respect or modes of speaking and acting that are learned associations with depravity. The former end of the continuum is much less fluid than the other side, if at all. It is possible that in my first post I confused social conservatism with cultural conservatism/nationalism.
Last edited by petitesouris on 11 Dec 2010, 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Actually social conservatism and fiscal conservatism tie together. The idea with social conservatism is personal responsibility (that includes if you get a woman pregnent you shouldn't ditch the girl cause you don't want to deal with the responsiblity of raising a child), where as social liberalism talks of moral relativism and Government being in charge. Fiscal Conservatism is based on the social conservative principles of personal responsibility that Government shouldn't be a nanny state.
That is one reason why I am against abortion, because it is being used as birth control because two people can't keep their stuff in their pants. Abortion just encourages more of that behavior.
I believe that Objective Morals exist. Therefor I am socially conservative, since at the moment most people want to view morality as highly subjective.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
For any situation there are infinite wrong answers and a single right one, but to quote Rousseau, "general and abstract ideas are the source of the greatest errors of mankind".
Nonetheless, moral relativism is balderdash because opposing opinions on a crucial ethical topic, does not make everyone correct.
No moral principle follows from the underlying physics that correctly describe how the world works. Morality is a convention and moral principles are mostly customs. Moral judgment is mostly opinion.
The only point at which morality and physics/biology have a junction is to note that some moral codes if followed would lead to extinction. So no reasonable person would follow such rules.
ruveyn
It is easy and/or natural for me to be socially conservative. This is because it is my natural inclination to resist strong social pressures to conform. An under-30 individual like myself is usually expected to be liberal and idealistic, especially in higher-education. For the younger age groups, there is so much social pressure to accept diversity, support Obama, etc.
No matter what the context, it is always in my nature to naturally defy the establishment and resist the brainwashing. What I do is to plant those little seeds of doubt in the heads of my peers; This prevents their brains from being completely taken over by the coterie of hardcore-leftists professors who are hell bent on "shaping young minds," to their collective image. All I have to do is just whisper in people's ears and make those brief little comments that get them to doubt the whole "one people one world" world view(as well as most other core-liberal ethoses.) I really take pleasure in quiet subversion and getting anyone to think how I want them to just by those brief, thrusting little comments........ just by being that little bird from whom they heard. Its great fun for me to generally resist the overwhelming liberal brainwashing in all manner and going underground, as well as some conventional arguing.
No matter what the context, it is always in my nature to naturally defy the establishment and resist the brainwashing. What I do is to plant those little seeds of doubt in the heads of my peers; This prevents their brains from being completely taken over by the coterie of hardcore-leftists professors who are hell bent on "shaping young minds," to their collective image. All I have to do is just whisper in people's ears and make those brief little comments that get them to doubt the whole "one people one world" world view(as well as most other core-liberal ethoses.) I really take pleasure in quiet subversion and getting anyone to think how I want them to just by those brief, thrusting little comments........ just by being that little bird from whom they heard. Its great fun for me to generally resist the overwhelming liberal brainwashing in all manner and going underground, as well as some conventional arguing.
Universities do project their beliefs onto students. That is why I have avoided studying the humanities, because what they call "art" is an eyesore and only shows that the artist who made it cannot draw.
Still, I have never found conservative ideas to be nonconformist. They are individualistic if they are against a monolithic world order, but when many of them speak about freedom, they mention the family or community loyalties, as being the smallest units of society. There is nothing wrong with those tenets, but I have never heard them mention the individual as an indivisable unit. They claim to be individualistic when resisting environmental laws, but have traditional values that are just as collectivistic.
^ I purposely chose a very liberal university filled that was with hard-line leftist professors, where I would be working in opposition and not merely preaching to the choir at a conservative school. I wanted a very fertile ground and loads of chances to participate as a conservative minority in a very liberal setting. There is a huge value towards learning how to hold your own in "enemy territory," and engage in debate against a quantatively superior foe. I wanted to be tested.
I did/do keep an open mind of course, but I never saw any spectacular liberal argument directed at me that made me seriously consider a rethink. I never saw any counterargument besides the same tired slogans, or the superficially and easily debunkable catch-phrases.
I purposely wanted to be a conservative in a place where those values I detested would attempt to get projected on me, and I could respond in kind. There was a huge entertainment value for me to shock my liberal professors and peers with well-thought-out and coherent conservative responses and debunkings to their contrived party-line. I loved going back and forth. I just loved to scandalize and stun naive individuals with opposing viewpoints that they would never have otherwise been exposed to. I was glad they got to hear another side besides the bombarding stream of liberal and multiculturalst propaganda that they had been force-fed for 17 years in public education. It was just great fun to operate subversively and tear things apart, and to completely shatter all of those falsified values to the core that they had lived by, and make them rethink their whole world-outlooks.
Anyway, with the youth, I do see alot of sub-conformity to liberal counterculturist cliques. Conforming to being a non-conformist, as the saying goes.
Nope, you made a leap.
Objective morality does not entail social conservatism. Certainly you need a better argument than that, especially given that a few modern attempts at objectively grounded political morality have been liberal. (In fact, most political philosophers are probably liberals, not conservatives, and yet mostly attempt some form of moral theory)
Nope, you made a leap.
Objective morality does not entail social conservatism. Certainly you need a better argument than that, especially given that a few modern attempts at objectively grounded political morality have been liberal. (In fact, most political philosophers are probably liberals, not conservatives, and yet mostly attempt some form of moral theory)
I meant it as being conservative as in moving against the commonly held position while trying to maintain a value you perceive has being routed in the past and beneficial to the future (this is highly subjective). You are only demonstrating the fundamental weakness of the terms liberal and conservative. For example in Australia, I am a member of a center left political party. The right wing party is called the liberal party.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
The war on drugs is not unique to conservatism. It is more like common sense. I take it you have never been to a high school where the only way to avoid having classmates who smoke pot in front of the teacher is to take all honors and APs. Why anyone would willfully kill their neurons is beyond me.
The war on drugs is not unique to conservatism. It is more like common sense. I take it you have never been to a high school where the only way to avoid having classmates who smoke pot in front of the teacher is to take all honors and APs. Why anyone would willfully kill their neurons is beyond me.
I'll drink to that.
ruveyn
The war on drugs is not unique to conservatism. It is more like common sense. I take it you have never been to a high school where the only way to avoid having classmates who smoke pot in front of the teacher is to take all honors and APs. Why anyone would willfully kill their neurons is beyond me.
Common sense isn't the right place to start since our common sense is the result of our beliefs. Once your beliefs change, so does your common sense. If you believe Hollywood movies are realistic, common sense tells you a bullet pushes people 6 feet back. On the other hand, if you believe Newton's laws of physics, common sense tells you such a small projectile can only push you to a negligible extent.
Why would anyone willfully fatten themselves up with McDonalds? Why would any shy person temporarily avoid anxiety when facing them is more beneficial in the long run? And the answer is... shortsightedness and instant gratification over long term achievement. And hell, it still isn't even that cut and dried. We are all fallible to shortsightedness and acting on impulse, some more than others.
Well, the issue of "rooted in the past" isn't a matter of the objectivity of something. It is a matter of the history of knowledge. Something can be objectively true without historical acceptance.
I don't think I am demonstrating the weakness of the terms either. I was using them in an American context for standard left and right politics.
Well, the issue of "rooted in the past" isn't a matter of the objectivity of something. It is a matter of the history of knowledge. Something can be objectively true without historical acceptance.
I don't think I am demonstrating the weakness of the terms either. I was using them in an American context for standard left and right politics.
I am not an American.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.