Okay, and when has a politician on the conservative side succeeded in shrinking government? And what does “smaller government” mean, exactly? Less interference in the individual’s private affairs by government agents? That’s not a conservative practice. A libertarian one, perhaps. And how successful have libertarians been?
Yes; “smaller government” is just a line they throw out. They demonstrably don’t actually mean it. They just want to shrink the parts that help & protect people and grow the parts that hurt, oppress and spy upon people.
You didn’t ask how it was going to happen, merely what they believe and the first thing that came up on Google was the Wiki page that mentioned smaller government. The next one was Ask.com which says that, among other things, social conservatives believe in -
The right to bear arms
Creating economic opportunities for America’s needy
Implementing high tariffs on countries that do not uphold human rights
Read my response to Der Trihs.
FWTW, I doubt that I have any of the beliefs that a social conservative does, but he only asked what socially conservative beliefs are neither malignant, bigoted, nor tyrannical and that was the first one I found.
Well, “smaller government” is a handy label, but what does it mean exactly, to a social conservative?
And is it contradictory to “Creating economic opportunities for America’s needy” and “Implementing high tariffs on countries that do not uphold human rights” ?
But the devil is in the details, isn’t it?
I mean, “Creating economic opportunities for America’s needy” isn’t really a policy position. It’s a slogan. Plenty of liberals want to create economic opportunities for America’s needy; they just advocate different policies for doing it.
Dunno
Could be. As I said, all I did was answer the original question, where Der Trihs had decided some guy was evil incarnate simply because someone said he was a social conservative.
Yup. However, apparently being a social conservative doesn’t necessarily mean you are evil.
He did it! He actually produced a cite! I think we should all print out the page, and tape it to our respective refrigerators! Soon, we can take the training wheels off of his computer. The helmet, however, should stay for a while.
Now, about this cite. Well, first off, its Wikepedia, which for us snottier pedantic types is a good place to start to get cites. But not really a cite itself, especially when it starts with its own disclaimer. You saw that, right, Starkers? Where it says:
Followed along by
And, of course, a couple of pretty obvious caveats, first and foremost, the age sample extends to twenty five years of age. Rather long in the tooth for the Justin Bieber crowd. Second, the complete lack of comparative data. Starkers is certain all of this happened because of the liberal permissiveness, and offers this as substantiation. Now, this may, in fact, represent some substance to the claim that STDs are more prevalent than they were, or, more likely, they are more often reported than they were. But in no wise, by no stretch of the imagination, is any causation proven or even implied by this data.
It may be that the incidence of VD has increased ten percent but our reporting has increased a hundred percent (all figures pulled directly from my ass, I haven’t the foggiest…) In which case it would definitely appear that STDs are skyrocketing! Secondly, alternate periods of sexual repression followed by comparative license are rather common, and all manner of diverse explanations are offered.
And, once again, Starkers offers us the grade school blow job crisis. We’ve been here before. We hassled him about it, demanding proof, and he had to go press wildflowers and arrange his hope chest. Some of us went to the trouble and found an article (from Los Angeles?) suggesting that such a thing had happened. Maybe. Maybe once. Kinda fuzzy.
“Can I borrow your burnt umber crayon for a minute?”
“Sure, if you give me a knob job!”
“Uh, you’re a girl.”
“Oh. Right. Well, here you go…”
Grade school kids don’t have the necessary apparatus, Starkers. The hormones don’t kick in for several years yet. Your story was utter horseshit, as you simply must have known. Really, is there nothing you won’t stoop to?
But still: a cite! By golly, we are making some progress after all these years!
By the bye, it appears that the new kid on the blockhead, OMG, is feeling a bit left out. We shower our attention on our pet rightard, and he is feeling a bit jealous. So, take a moment to be inclusive. Big Bird says its nice to include others.
Apparently, it did happen at least once.
[Quote=Der Trihs]
You say I shouldn’t condemn someone because of the label “social conservative”, but then don’t given any details of the actual social conservative beliefs he has - because it would then become obvious why I condemn him from the phrase “social conservative”, or that he actually isn’t a “social conservative” at all.
[/Quote]
I’ll remind you both that I allowed for the guy perhaps not necessarily being Mr. Wonderful, but I have no further comment unless or until the OP tells us what the term ‘social conservative’ refers to in this context, as it is his acquaintance he is referring to. I’ve never met the guy; how the hell would I know what his beliefs are? I was simply pointing out that Der Trihs was constructing a surprising detailed narrative for a two-word statement.
Well, then, I look forward to someone who is a social conservative (well, an American one, to be specific) dropping by to explain his/her beliefs or someone who knows social conservatives and can confidently describe their beliefs.
The fact in question is referenced to a CDC pubilication in the wikipedia article.. I didn’t click on the link, but it’s there.
I also think it said this was the first time such a survey was taken (2008), so there would be no way of knowing how it compares to earlier dates much less what the cause(s) would be.
Regarding S_A, meanwhile, I’ll say: I was wrong regarding STD rates. Not sure why the CDC page I cited did not include HPV and a few other diseases mentioned on the page mhendo linked to. I was nevertheless incorrect, so I’ll take my lumps for that.
The grade school blow jobs, on the other hand, maybe happened once, no clear idea how liberalism is supposed to play into it. Jury’s still out on that one, seems like.
It’s certainly possible. And you don’t necessarily have to, uhm, finish to qualify as getting one.
But I’d be surprised if this was happening a lot for 5th grades, which is when elementary school ends in CA.
I am surprised by this thread. Not that it’s become another thread all about Starving Artist - any thread about partisan assholes will inevitably feature him heavily - but that there are still people who pay attention to anything Der Trihs writes (at least about politics or religion). I’ve even given up rolling my eyes anymore - too much work.
Jonathan Chance already did, and Der Trihs said the guy must be evil. But maybe Mr Chance would be willing to find out what his social conservative beliefs are.
OTOH, the fact that we can’t seem to find an absolute definition seems to mean that - gasp! - judging someone based on some political label isn’t a good thing.
Oh no you don’t! Liberalism Gone Wild started long before that. I blame the Magna Carta.
After all… the MC required the King of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary—a sinister foreshadowing of Ward Cleaver and Ozzie Nelson having to accept that their sons might choose to grow long hair or protest the Vietnam War.
Damn Magna Carta! (shakes fist) Get off of my Law!
To interject myself into this argument a little late. Again, not to play “captain save-a-bro”, but here’s something to think about in relation to what Starving Artist said regarding liberal policies.
Abortion legalization leads to changes in sexual behavior. This is evidenced by increased STD rates. This is because people are more willing to engage in risky activities (in this case sex, or even unprotected sex) when they have abortion to fall back on versus when they do not. It stands to reason that the more sex, or even unprotected sex you have, the greater your chance is to contract an STD. Since, therefore, liberals tends to support access to abortion whereas conservatives do not, and access to abortion is correlated with increased STD rates, it can be argued that the liberal policy of “abortion-on-demand” has led to an increase in STD rates.
I’ll wait for the attacks I know to be coming.
Ummm, right. Just go on telling yourself that to make yourself feel better. I just like pointing out the inherent short-sightedness of some of accusations levied against conservatives around here when, in my short time on this board, I’ve noticed far worse from the side levying said accusations.
It’s kind of ironic, actually 
(Think I missed edit window. Oh well.)
Oh. Dear. Abortion as a fall back plan. Yeah. cough.
Um, if you want to blame liberals for the loosening of sexual mores in this country, you don’t have to stretch as far as that…