APP - Ask me about social conservatism

Damn Yankee said:
They've been answered, or your questions are just silly.
Click to expand...

I know you answered the school prayer question, which is why I added a bit to it.

It is not surprising that you would dodge the issues this way, yet again. Silly? Not a single one of those are silly. They are all serious issues concerning our freedoms.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I've known plenty of native New Englandders who get all emotional when I hit them off the side of their heads with facts. You're just the latest example.
Click to expand...

Still no answers. Why don't you admit that you are for a bunch of stuff you don't understand?
 
* Limited government and balanced budgets
Limited gov't? And yet you advocate the gov't deciding whether or not a private business owner can allow smoking. Several of the things on your list are bigger gov't. (Limiting gov't is not a "silly" issue.
* Classroom prayer
What sort of prayer? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Pagan? Hindu? And will the majority of students respect the beliefs of the minority? (making sure the religious views of all the students will be respected is not a "silly" issue)

* Abstinence education
Because it has worked so well? If the schools are teaching morality, doesn't that conflict with "Parental control of education"? (The conflict between you wanting the schools to teach morality and you claiming to want parental control of education is not a "silly" issue)

* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
On the one hand you want smaller gov't, and on the other you want it to interfere in personal relationships. (The conflict between claims of wanting less gov't and the obvious use of gov't authority to further your own religious views is not a "silly" issue)

* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
This is simply a diversionary phrase for gender discrimination.

* Laws against pornography
And who defines what is pornographic? Will we create laws based on an "I know it when I see it" ideology? (I didn't see this question answered, and it is certainly not "silly")

* The death penalty
Since it has not been shown to be a serious deterrent, and since our judicial system continually shows itself to be flawed, and since the costs of capital cases is prohibitively high, this one doesn't pass muster either.


* Parental control of education
Which parents? The liberal ones? The ones who want the gov't to spend more and more?
(not a silly question either)

* Respect for our military ... past and present
And how do you legislate that? Require salutes for veterans?
(This is not a "silly" question, since you thought it important enough to put in your list.)

* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming
The labelling evolution as "junk science" is a poor attempt at an Appeal to Ridicule, and offers no actual evidence that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

* Low taxes, especially for families
So how much do you plan to penalize single people? And who defines what a "family" is, exactly? (Not a "silly" question here either)
 
I can answer the school prayer question: Its whichever school prayer that the particular state or district chooses to enact, within the confines of the state constitution and the district charter. Because Congress may pass no law "respecting" (meaning "in regard to") an establishment of religion, it leaves the states and/or districts free to do as they choose in this area.
 
1. It doesn't take a lot of government to institute social policy.
2. Answered previously.
3. Abstinence works every time.
4. See item 1.
5. No its not.
6. We have laws against porn now.
7. Answered previously, and shown to be effective.
8. The parents of the child in question. The issue relates to home schooling and school choice more than anything.
9. Increase base pay for starters.
10. Discussed previously at great length.
11. Flat or Fair tax, with deducts for tuition.

I recommend that you choose one issue and discuss it instead of your brain diarrhea approach.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Now you're just trolling.
Click to expand...

That must be your pat answer. I asked you legitimate questions at your request. I am playing your game, your rules. When you get backed into a corner, I am trolling. What was that you said earlier about self-pawnage?
 
Holden Caulfield said:
That must be your pat answer. I asked you legitimate questions at your request. I am playing your game, your rules. When you get backed into a corner, I am trolling. What was that you said earlier about self-pawnage?
Click to expand...

It's called self pwnage, and you've done an admirable job at it.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. It doesn't take a lot of government to institute social policy.
2. Answered previously.
3. Abstinence works every time.
4. See item 1.
5. No its not.
6. We have laws against porn now.
7. Answered previously, and shown to be effective.
8. The parents of the child in question. The issue relates to home schooling and school choice more than anything.
9. Increase base pay for starters.
10. Discussed previously at great length.
11. Flat or Fair tax, with deducts for tuition.

I recommend that you choose one issue and discuss it instead of your brain diarrhea approach.
Click to expand...

1. Social policy? Telling a privately owned business that they cannot allow their patrons to smoke is a social policy? No, it is a destruction of freedom.
3. Abstinence works every time. But abstinence education has not worked well at all. And what about the "Parental Control of Education"?
4. Social program again? And yet a discriminatory social policy.
5. If its not then clarify what you mean.
6. Yes we do have laws against certain kinds of porn. And we allow plenty more. So we should keep the current laws?
7. Cite? I am sure I can cite as much research that says it is not effective.
8. And if the parents demand more and more money be spent on the schools?
9. Increasing base pay works. But is that respect?
10.
11. Fair Tax has no deductions. That is the foundation of the plan and why it is called "Fair".

I am sure you would prefer I pick one topic. But you invariably resort to personal insults rather than continuing the discussion.
 
1. It's a state and local issue.
3. Yes, parents should be able to control their child's education.
4. No it treats everyone the same.
5. It is you who needs to clarify.
6. Yes.
7. Then do so.
8. Take it up with the local school board.
9. Of course it is.
11. Actually, it does.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. It's a state and local issue.
3. Yes, parents should be able to control their child's education.
4. No it treats everyone the same.
5. It is you who needs to clarify.
6. Yes.
7. Then do so.
8. Take it up with the local school board.
9. Of course it is.
11. Actually, it does.
Click to expand...

1. No, it is an issue of the gov't interferring with a private business on private property. You cannot argue for smaller gov't and freedom while backing the no smoking laws.
3. If it means teaching abstinence only, the parents are not in control when they want comprehensive sex ed.
4. No, it discriminates against same-sex couples for no reason.
5. I need to clarify what you want or believe? Nice dodge.
6. Then there will be plenty of porn around.
7. You made the claim, so I am expecting you to back it up. I expect you to conform to the same standards you expect of others.
But since you asked: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm
And considering the number of convictions overturned with new evidence, there is a significant chance of executing the innocent.
8. I am trying to discuss the issue with the person who brought it up.
9. So a pay increase is all? lol
11. Actually it doesn't.
From: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_glossary
"Under the FairTax deductions are no longer necessary since there are no taxes on your income, i.e., there is nothing to deduct them from."
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. Your income is irrelevant. Deductions only serve to lower your taxable income. A consumption tax is paid on purchases.
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's your problem summed up. Social Conservatism is rigidly defined, as demonstrated in the OP. You've tried to make your own definitions, but as I've stated many times, groups get to make up their own definitions, not their opposition.
Click to expand...

Then we really are nowhere as anyone else can make up their list and say it is demonstrated. That is my point in much of this debate but it seems to be ignored. But you didn't answer my question on the conservative imposition of religion on a society that is diverse and includes multiple points of view. Your argument is no better than a Maoist or a Marxist as you presume to know what's better for others who do not share your religion. You really cannot face the complexity and need these simple solutions, that's OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't work in the real world. It is part of the reason the south to this day lacks the educational facilities and the wherewithal to move in the modern age.

King of Reason said:
You're an idiot. No, your analogies never work, and never will work. They are silly constructs which are frequently dishonest, and always irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This reply only demonstrates the weakness of your thought and argument - you have none so you resort to ad homs. Try this reply, tell us why my analogy is wrong. So far no one has none that and in truth no one ever could. Darn, I gave away the answer. Language is not life, and libertarianism like most isms is simply a mask to put over a present, preferred and often personal reality. This thread has proved that over and over again. Out there the world turns.....

"Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language." Ludwig Wittgenstein
 
midcan5 said:
[1]Then we really are nowhere as anyone else can make up their list and say it is demonstrated. That is my point in much of this debate but it seems to be ignored. [2] But you didn't answer my question on the conservative imposition of religion on a society that is diverse and includes multiple points of view. Your argument is no better than a Maoist or a Marxist as you presume to know what's better for others who do not share your religion. You really cannot face the complexity and need these simple solutions, that's OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't work in the real world. It is part of the reason the south to this day lacks the educational facilities and the wherewithal to move in the modern age.
Click to expand...
1. What?
2. Nothing in the OP statement imposes religion on anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top