I think you have that completely backwards. “It takes a village” simply means that the well being of a child (or any other member of the village) is the responsibility of the society as a whole. From the conservative view, the village forces the woman to bear a child she may not want, and then tells them to “fuck off” by cutting off prenatal care, family aid, head start, school lunches, and school funding.
I read a lot of Camus when I was younger, but I haven’t encountered Caligula. I’ll have to check that out.
Well, I *did *specify that I wasn’t interested in the perpetrators’ excuses and justifications (having been exposed to that bullshit before and recognized that it’s indeed bullshit), but rather an explanation of why they’re like that.
Jeez, thanks for *that *small token of respect.:rolleyes:
“Actual onservative perspective” would be yet another iteration of their arguments; as stated, I know the what, I was asking about the why.
If you don’t get to tell everyone else what to do, then that means that thee is someone who can tell you what to do, which means that you are not yourself free.
Of course, this means that in the course of ensuring freedom for yourself, you are imposing oppression on others. But that’s okay, because they are not you.
I may have missed it so far in this thread, but: I always figured, it’s easy.
Take me: I’m not, as it happens, gay. I also don’t, as it happens, have any desire to paint my toenails: I wake up in the morning with no interest in having sex with a guy, and with no interest in painting my toenails; I then spend the day fighting off zero temptation to do either; I then eventually go to bed, minus any regrets or cravings involving either. This takes Absolutely No Effort on my part.
So imagine I see a bunch of folks telling a homosexual, hey, you’re a sinner! Stop it! That’s an evil vice, and you’re bad for giving in to temptation! We’ll commend you for your virtue if you’ll keep those urges from getting the upper hand; but, oh, how we’ll greet you with scorn and derision and consequences if you succumb!
If I join in — well, look, here I am, in no danger of getting called out as a sinner for that stuff; it takes no effort for me to say, in this context, that I’m virtuous: not like that guy over there, amirite? Compared to me, he’s now a second-class citizen; why? Because he failed to conquer desires I don’t even have. I win by default.
Why wouldn’t I be cool with that? Well, sympathy and compassion, and a love of consistency and fair-play philosophy, and other high-sounding stuff; and, since I’m a fan of that stuff, I’m fan of gay rights. But if you ask me what I get out of that, as opposed to the old-fashioned arrangement? Well — nothing, really.
Agreed, STDs are bad. They are also preventable, and most are curable.
Debatable. While I’ve no use for children, and people produce far too many of the things, an OOW one isn’t somehow worse than a legit one. Plus, the opprobium on bastards is wholly a result of exactly the energy under discussion here (woman has OOW sex and gets caught pregnant–well, serves her right for breaking our law! And, as if the kid weren’t sufficient consequence for her activity, let’s add yet more punishment to her plate!
Again, debatable. First off, abortion is not a bad thing; it’s neutral at worst. Second, most of the sex that’s conservatiuves want to stop you from having is non-reproductive.
No, that’s good, if it’s even true. Families are an oppressive institution by their very nature, for their members and the rest of the world alike.
Yes, and that’s another * good thing*. Those tenets are malignant and ought to be trashed (or at least their subscribers should be made to keep them to themselves).
Indeed. However, that’s an *effect of repressive sexual moralism, not a cause *thereof.
(snipped for my stomach’s sake)
A dreary, sanctimonious message illustrative of what I stated in the OP that I’m *not *interested in–a would-be oppressor’s gloss of sorry excuses for bossiness, self-righteousness, and coercion.
To me, it looks as if there’s an answer: “Because that used to be the right answer, and it used to be the right answer because everyone’s survival used to depend on the fact that every individual belonged to a traditional family and every individual would be the parent of enough children to both work the fields and take care of the old people; anyone who didn’t or couldn’t meet these requirements (i.e. they were single or they were married without children) was a burden to everyone else.”
Think of the tradition explained in the Bible, that a father would not allow his younger daughter to be married until his older daughter was married first. It would be because if he had a daughter who never got married, he would become an irresponsible member of his community - he would be allowing the older daughter to become a burden.
To me it appears that most modern conservatives do, without necessarily saying it, still really regard some people as a burden for precisely the same reason. (not, mind, that they’re saying the person’s needs are or aren’t a burden, but that they’re saying the person themselves is of overall negative value because of their sexual status.)
Ah…Folks?
I didn’t start out to define/differentiate conservative versus liberal philosophies, and I will avoid those labels here. There aren’t enough pages on the Internet for that. You might not approve of the intellectual shorthand of conservative=resource allocation ( I didn’t say efficiency)- but if we can all agree to put our pre-theoretical assumptions aside for a moment, I was merely offering a point of view as to from where such (sometimes more than prurient) concern with the private actions of others might spring. I’m complicated. So I have distinct progressive attitudes. I think it is important that everyone has real chances to make real choices than are equal in reality, not just “equal opportunity”. I grew up in (Northern) Appalachia, on a dirt road, and had friends whose houses had dirt floors. No one thinks about applying to Harvard there. Today I know I would most likely have been accepted, but that was what we’d now call a meme that was outside my reality. My egalitarian side is disgruntled with this- the differences in life opportunities for the individual. The libertarian side is concerned with the welfare of the entire “tribe”- NOT the individual. I had too much training in microeconomics and the behaviors of populations to not consider the impact of group processes. Personally, I get all hot and bothered for Pareto improvements in how society allocates resources, but obviously, many people starting from the same general operative assumptions go straight down the rabbit hole and make + or - arguments based on the flimsiest or outright wrong interpretations of resource use for all sorts of specious nonsense. I merely used egalitarian=best for individuals/libertarian=best for tribe to lay down a basic difference in perspective so we could explore why anyone gives a good GD what I or you do when the lights are turned down low. If you can accept that the original intention is to see social resources used to best further the interests of the “tribe”, and if you can accept that sexuality is a resource (get real- how many billions are spent for clothes,perfumes,the perpetual pursuit of youth, the cost of treatable and untreatable STDs, exploitation of a hundred different flavors, etc.)- then the why of some people’s interest in this area is explicable. Not necessarily defendable in most cases, but explicable. Especially if we all agree to leave the hot-button flare words of both sides out of the discussion.
Let us agree to recognize the impact of pre-theoretical assumptions- what we believe before we apply reason and logic. If we ignore these, we cannot have a conversation of any meaning- e.g.,someone with faith (in some sort of higher power) has a pre-theoretical assumption of the existence of a HP. How can there ever be a meaningful conversation with a deep down to the bone scientist whose pre-theoretical world view doesn’t include spiritual beings? They speak different languages, because their base belief systems are different. (side note I can’t resist- what is the scientist’s pre-theoretical assumption that is on a par with the faithful individual’s belief in a higher something? A fundamental belief in causality-which the Good Dr. Hawking’s " not only does God throw the dice, he throws them where we can’t see them" suggesting that causality is a heck of lot more slippery than most would care to admit.
The point is, I’m not a label and I am not a box. If you need a punching bag for your personal belief system, feel free. You cannot conceivably harm me 1/1,000,000 of the harm I’ve done myself in this life, and if you want to rise above yourself and bond with me, admit the same statement is just as true about you.
All I have tried to do is answer the OP’s question. It is a legitimate question, it is an important question. As far as I am concerned, the the ever more polarized civic discussion is not good for any of us- at any level. I’m not writing another bloody dissertation here, by all that’s holy. I took a few minutes from my busy day to offer an insight. Thank you, DavidwithanR, for seeing that, at some level. Can you pick this apart at multiple levels? Of course. But seriously, why should we all go wallow in the quicksand and cut notches in our lipstick cases for every point we’ve won, instead of- “Hey, that just may have a certain veracity of logic to it. It doesn’t justify most, if any of the ways the debate has gone, but it frames the origin of the impulse. What, then, can we do with this perspective to enhance and inform the discussion, and, God willing, move forward together, rather than continue the pointless sniping and counting coup?”
And that, as far as I am concerned, is the rest of the story. Full stop.
… which (the stuff in my last post) I think might be a highly anti-libertarian point of view, as well as obviously being an anti-liberal one.
Well, “moving forward together” relies on there being a shared notion of which way to call forward. And the essence of the conflict between liberal and conservative is that conservatives say that “forward” can only mean “the same direction we were headed yesterday, last year, and five thousand years ago”, while liberals say that “forward” needs to be redefined according to each new situation. Or - a different perspective - conservatives believe there’s a meta-context that never changes, while liberals believe there isn’t.
Oh, so you’re one of those, huh? :dubious:
… an argument that only works if freedom is a limited resource, where one person being free automatically and always causes the enslavement of someone else.
I know that in theory life doesn’t have to be like that. But the situation in the world - so many people either functionally or literally slaves - makes me wonder exactly what creates the obvious gap between theory and practice.
+1 I’ve grown increasingly fond of your posts over the years.
Too bad there was no conservative folkie in the 1960s to sing “oh, the times they are a stayin’ exactly the same”. 
I suspect that it’s possible, perhaps only by agreeing to put up with some level of perpetual cognitive dissonance, to be independently moral and also religious. However, one’s definition of “how to be religious” would in that case have to include more possibilities than some other religious people are willing to admit.
Religion is fine, if it informs you of how to behave, and it does not conflict with the ways that society needs you to behave.
There are plenty of good things that are done in the name of religion. People use religion as an inspiration to help out their fellow man. I personally, still call myself a christian, because I believe that the myth of the man called Jesus lays out a framework for others to follow for a good life, even though I do not believe in his divinity or even his very existence. Some of the parables and other stories in the bible can be educational or inspirational.
It is those who use religion as an excuse to cuase harm to their fellow man, or to justify their own selfish desires that make religion into something to be avoided and shunned by most rational folks.
I know lots of religious people (unfortunately) and most of them spend most of their time operating on independent humanistic morals rather than religious dogma, in large part because their religious dogma doesn’t lay out specific rules for every single distinct situation. Problems only arise when their humanistic morals do come into conflict with their religious dogma, in which case (in the people I know at least) morality goes right into the crapper. But until that point they actually have and operate on humanistic empathy-based morals, even if they don’t consciously recognize that they’re doing so.
Admittedly it would be true to say that their religious dogma, with its wiggle room for daily situations, includes more possibilities than some other religious people are willing to admit. But given how spectacularly shitty some specific religious people are, you could say that about most religious people.
Some of my dearest friends/co-workers have been fundie Christians. On their part I think they say to themselves “well, homosexuality is a sin, but Jennshark is a truly lovely person whom I love and trust.” On my part I value the wonderful things that I find in my friends supersedes their proclaimed beliefs (PSA: none of these friends are Nazis, extremist abortion clinic bombers, or virulent racists). We have come to a kind of truce that works for us – we don’t ignore our differences, we just handle whatever comes up.
I’m probably comfortable with these arrangements because I grew up in a fundie Utah Mormon family and I have a sense of the individuality/hopes/pain/love/hate that exists behind religiosity, because I’ve lived it (and escaped it :D).
*Sidenote: the friendships I’ve had with fellow women of lesbos have tended to be the most fraught with yucky arguments, betrayals, and general nastiness concerning opposing viewpoints. On the whole, my Christian friends have been more compassionate, loyal, and giving than those of my own ilk. And I think they find similar qualities in me.
I suspect that a lot of lesbian women have grown up in circumstances where they are not accepted, were forced to learn too early to stand up for themselves (perhaps including standing up for themselves against the very people whose actual job it is to stand up for them), and later (assuming that their circumstances got better) find that their “inner fighter” continues to pop up in situations where they don’t need or want it to.