Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

Drewdad wrote:

Ah! You believe in moral relativism. OK.

Not at all, I am a moral absolutist. Just because I acknowledge that others have different (and in my opinion incorrect) moral absolutes doesn't mean I believe in moral relativism.

Perhaps a definition would help...
[quote="wikipedia]In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. [/quote]

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

What are the hallmarks of a social conservative, politically speaking?

Here's my take, to try and answer your question

A society where right and wrong are well-defined (according to traditional judeo-christian beliefs), acknowledged and honored by all.

0 Replies

So if you win in war, you have the right to take the wives and children as property and make them your slaves.

0 Replies

uunh...I don't think taking wives and childrens as slaves fit into "traditional judeo-christian beliefs".

0 Replies

At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

0 Replies

c.i.,

wrong forum...we're talking social conservatism here, not theology

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

boomerang wrote:
What are the hallmarks of a social conservative, politically speaking?

Here's my take, to try and answer your question

A society where right and wrong are well-defined (according to traditional judeo-christian beliefs), acknowledged and honored by all.

You would not have defined Afghanistan under the Taliban as socially conservative?

0 Replies

DrewDad,

No, I don't think so...The Taliban were trying to establish an Islamic Theocracy. Theocracies are incompatible with our Constitution. I would like to see a society that respects a strong moral code, but still within the bounds of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'd like a society where my daughters can walk at night without fear...where neighbor would help neighbor (as the Pennsylvania Dutch are known to do), even impoverished neighbors...where women are respected and honored for just being women...where fathers stay with and lead their families...where marriage is accepted as a prerequisite for sex (rather than the other way around). I could go on and on, but I think you get the flavor.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Fishin'- I am unclear as to your stand on Bill Gates, and other extremely rich individuals.[/color][/b]

Quote:
Bill should be able to collect SS either, IMO.

I think that the word "either" threw me. I am unsure as to which side of the issue you are on. As for me, I would have preferred to have taken all the money that I had thrown into SS, and invested it privately. But, if the Bill Gates and Oprah Winfreys of the world are obliged to kick into social security, IMO it is only fair that they benefit from it. I don't believe that a person should be obliged to pay into a system, only to be deprived of benefits from it.

Sorry! I messed up my typing. The orignal statment should have read:

Quote:

Bill should NOT be able to collect SS either, IMO.

I'd agree that there is an element of fairness involved but SS is not a fair system to begin with. Bill Gates, Oprah and other mega-millionaires like them have their SS wages capped each year. They only pay SS taxes on a minute portion of their annual income.

The mega-rich are also the most likely to have the best of healthcare and that provides them the highest change of living longer than most of the rest of us (barring some genetic disorder on their part).

Assuming Bill Gates will live past 5 or 6 years into retirement he will be collecting more from the SS system than he ever paid into it. In effect we'd be putting a mega-millionaire on public welfare.

The SS system can not be sustained when it is paying out more to each individual than they ever paid into the system. It's supposed to be a system that ensures people don't fall into poverty in their old age not a system that provides petty cash to people with hundreds of millions or billions in assets.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'd agree that there is an element of fairness involved but SS is not a fair system to begin with. Bill Gates, Oprah and other mega-millionaires like them have their SS wages capped each year. They only pay SS taxes on a minute portion of their annual income.

fishin'- Yeah, but they will not receive any more in social security than the middle class folks who have also been taxed the maximum amount. IMO, if a person pays into something, he is entitled to the benefits of it.

Would you be happy with the idea that people who earn above the maximum neither pay the social security tax, nor receive any social security benefits? That would sit very well with me.

Personally, I think that the social security system is inefficient, wasteful, and really needs to be phased out, except in the case of SSD, the program for the severely disabled.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

DrewDad,

No, I don't think so...The Taliban were trying to establish an Islamic Theocracy. Theocracies are incompatible with our Constitution. I would like to see a society that respects a strong moral code, but still within the bounds of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'd like a society where my daughters can walk at night without fear...where neighbor would help neighbor (as the Pennsylvania Dutch are known to do), even impoverished neighbors...where women are respected and honored for just being women...where fathers stay with and lead their families...where marriage is accepted as a prerequisite for sex (rather than the other way around). I could go on and on, but I think you get the flavor.

You don't do irony, do you?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

The thing is - laws that would "endorse" gay marriage would also endorse families like mine.

I don't know that this would hold true. Changes in laws that allow gay marriage still aren't going to allow people to adopt a child (or become a child's guardian) without the consent of the biological parent absent some sort of signicant proof that doing so is in the best interest of the child.

boomerang wrote:

I'm still trying to determine what the hallmarks of a social conservative are.

What goals are being sought by this faction?

Does social conservativism exist only within the bounds of some religous teaching?

Can an athiest be a social conservative?

If so, how would they express their beliefs politically?

I don't think there HAS to be a religious tie-in but it probably more likely that there is. Religion tends to be something that teaches and relies on tradition. While laws can changes fairly quickly, religious teachings tend to have difficulaty bending.

But an atheist can also be a social conservative. Some of the "back to nature" atheist types are the most socially conservative people I've ever met. A lot of people that refer to themselves as "progressives" are just as socially conservative on some issues as the Christian right is on their issues. Many of the arguments against globalization, free trade, etc are based in social conservatism.

0 Replies

Let's pretend:

Instead of being married to Mr. B for fouteen years, I have been the partner of Mo's bio-mom (let's call her Bea) for fourteen years. Mo was created by artificial insimination and born to Bea in the usual way. Though I am not biologically related to Mo, I have been raising him alongside Bea since birth and I am for all intents and purposes his parent.

Now imagine that Bea and Mo are in a terrible car accident. Bea is killed and Mo is taken to the hospital in critical condition.

As I am not related to Mo biologically, or related to Bea by marriage I would not be allowed to visit Mo in the hospital or make any medical decisions related to his care.

Now do you see how the issues are related?

Even if you think my partnership with Bea is sinful or even just yukky shouldn't I have some kind of rights in this situation?

0 Replies

It's obvious you should have such rights, boomerang. Like fishin' though, I don't think such rights would naturally follow from recognition of gay marriage, by itself.

Nice catch, DrewDad.

0 Replies

Maybe I'm ignorant of the law. That wouldn't surprise me. I'm a photographer, not a lawyer, after all.

But don't step parents have right regarding their step children?

As Bea's "wife" wouldn't I be allowed to adopt Mo as my own child like a step-parent can do?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
DrewDad,

No, I don't think so...The Taliban were trying to establish an Islamic Theocracy. Theocracies are incompatible with our Constitution. I would like to see a society that respects a strong moral code, but still within the bounds of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'd like a society where my daughters can walk at night without fear...where neighbor would help neighbor (as the Pennsylvania Dutch are known to do), even impoverished neighbors...where women are respected and honored for just being women...where fathers stay with and lead their families...where marriage is accepted as a prerequisite for sex (rather than the other way around). I could go on and on, but I think you get the flavor.

You don't do irony, do you?

Sorry, I'm fairly new to A2K, but have been hammered enough for my beliefs that I'm afraid irony comes across as another attack.

0 Replies

You don't feel like you're being hammered on this thread do you slkshock?

I hope not!

I'm really trying to understand your position and I apologize if anything I've said seems like an attack.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

But don't step parents have right regarding their step children?

As Bea's "wife" wouldn't I be allowed to adopt Mo as my own child like a step-parent can do?

A step parent without a power of Atty has little legal authority over a step child. As an example, if you and "Bea" were married and the child was biologically hers and her ex-boyfriends and then Bea died, custody of the child would go to the ex-boyfriend. If you wanted custody you'd have to go through a process similar to what you are going through with Mo right now. As a step-parent you usually don't have the legal authority to do things like enroll the child in school, consent to medical procedures, etc..

The step-parent can only adopt if the biological parents consent to it or there is sufficient reason for a judge to believe the boilogical parents are a danger to the child's well being and the adoption would be in teh best interests of the child. In the example you gave, if Bea's ex relinquished paternity and a judge agreed then you'd be allowed to adopt. If the ex decided he didn't want to relinquish his parental rights you'd have to fight him in court and, assuming he's not homeless or in prison, you'd have a huge uphill battle.

0 Replies

In my example, the "ex" was a sperm donor at a fertility clinic who, I would assue, had already terminated any rights he might have had.

I could be mistaken but I think this is the way most gay women conceive.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

DrewDad,

No, I don't think so...The Taliban were trying to establish an Islamic Theocracy. Theocracies are incompatible with our Constitution. I would like to see a society that respects a strong moral code, but still within the bounds of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'd like a society where my daughters can walk at night without fear...where neighbor would help neighbor (as the Pennsylvania Dutch are known to do), even impoverished neighbors...where women are respected and honored for just being women...where fathers stay with and lead their families...where marriage is accepted as a prerequisite for sex (rather than the other way around). I could go on and on, but I think you get the flavor.

There's always a danger in explaining what someone else said, slkshock, but I'm going to give it my take. Doesn't requiring marriage as a prerequisite for sex sound somewhat ironic, considering your condemnation of the Taliban the same thing, although to a different degree? Well, you possibly consider the idea as something other than theological in origin, but not everyone would agree.

Anyway, pointing out an inconsistancy can't be considered an attack.

0 Replies

Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know