How can Aspies be conservative except under duress?

Post Reply New Topic

I want all people on the spectrum considering themselves conservatives to take a look at these two links, as well as any progressives looking for a good purgative. I know the Christian right isn't all there is to conservatism, but it's a big component of conservative ideology right now, and this evangelical slant on autism really is cause for concern:

http://www.deliveranceminister.com/foru ... .php?t=269
http://surelsoul.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... r-fiction/

how can anyone be "conservative"

if its good enough not to need changing it probably wont be changed,
unfortunately to my knowledge nothing is.

Hunh??? So, you're saying that some people are conservative and have bad ideas, therefore conservatism IS a bad idea?? That doesn't logically follow at all. Without something like this, the answer is really obvious:
1) They could be evangelicals still, just not believe in the bad idea.
2) They could be evangelicals and actually believe that schlock
3) They could believe in the Republican platform
4) They could be hyper-sensitive to non-mainstream cultures
5) They could generally agree with the Republican platform
6) They could believe that societal norms need to be held stable for flourishing.
.... etc.

I mean, autistics are people first, not their condition first.

How can anyone make the government or the state the main actor in society and NOT expect a tyranny?

ruveyn

Conservatives lack empathy.

Don't talk absolute rubbish.

And the Christian right has almost nothing to do with conservatism in Great Britain (Northern Ireland is a different matter). The Christian right are mostly seen as fringe nutters by the rest of society here.

I am a conservative but a very different kind from what is usually meant by the term - my conservatism is extremely secular, for one thing.

"If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain" (unknown).

Your Margaret Thatcher had no empathy for the poor but only contempt.

I bet it took a lot of convincing to get conservatives to donate, even after it was made a tax write-off.

That's a very flawed and simplistic way of looking at the situation.

Do you fancy having to wait considerable time for your own phone to be installed and not being able to buy your own telephone?
Do you fancy having a country totally in hock to thuggish and despotic unions throwing their weight about the place?
Do you fancy having warm milk given to you at school when it was not needed?
Do you fancy just surrendering thousands of British citizens to an Argentinian military junta?

I wasn't around at the time either, but Margaret Thatcher's reign was a lot more complicated than is made out by the hateful demonisers of the far-left. I wouldn't have liked some of her policies (I think they were authoritarian, especially the deranged "video nasty" frenzy) but I think on the main issues she was right. Also note that she didn't exactly shrink the welfare state in many cases either - I believe it grew during her reign.

My experiences influence me to adopt very socially liberal views, which are strong enough to err me on the side of liberalism. Still, I can understand what would compel people to have fiscally conservative views; it's social conservatism I have a problem with.

Depends what you mean by social conservatism. Not all social conservatives are the same - some are mainly cultural conservatives that are otherwise relatively libertarian. It's the in-your-face do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do kind that I have a problem with.

I'm a national conservative, which is often considered to be very much related to social conservatism but I'm not really a social conservative.

I'm talking about the no-abortion-no-gay-marriage-no-pornography-no-sex-ed types. Being someone who believes in individual liberty, I naturally have an aversion to that type of thinking.

i don't like the idea of abortion, and I think in far too many countries it is used much too freely. So, while I wouldn't ban it, I'd try to restrict it. Sometimes one just has to live with the consequences of one's actions.

Gay marriage? I've no problem with it in theory but churches can marry whoever they want. Frankly, under my regime I would cut all ties to the church from the state. You find a church that will deal with you, and my government will recognise your marriage.

Pornography? Everything apart from porn where people are at risk of serious injury and death or anything else that is evidence of a crime scene would be allowed. Can't go into details here or I will be banned.

Sexual education? Fine, as long as it is taught fairly and with responsibility and isn't used to shove particular dogmas onto impressionable children.

Does that sound alright to you?

Don't have time to read the links, but you become a conservative, aspie or not, by prioritising the needs of society as a whole ahead of needs/desires/liberty of the individual.

That's collectivism.