does it matter if the US is less socially conservative?

[CycloWizard]

There is no definition provided for "social conservatism." If I define it as holding everyone in the US to standards set by a group of religious fundamentalists, it's an absurd proposition. If instead I define it as the idea that right and wrong exist, are knowable, and legislation may therefore be used to render wrong behaviors illegal, then the debate is framed completely differently. The only argument I'm aware of against the latter is moral relativism which is fallacious. We may disagree on exactly which things are right or wrong, but that does not mean right and wrong do not exist.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah... and Yemen is rich? What about Jordan? I think the key with the UAE is oil, not conservatism.

So the wealth of society overall is driven by other things.

same can be said about African countries, India or China. if you want to cite some evidence that conservatism leads to wealth, go ahead, I doubt you'll find much out there...

China has one of the highest growth rates in the world.

They were also suppressed for years by communist (ie liberal) economic values.

 

[zsdersw]

Social conservatives tend to believe that "the way things were" has inherent value; that nothing needs to change. The problem with that is that we are not creatures of "the status quo". We need problems to solve and questions to answer, we need to expand our knowledge, our frontiers, explore ourselves and our place in the universe.

When it comes to sex, social conservatives believe sex (and the human body) is something to be ashamed of... and that the spectrum of human sexuality shouldn't be explored. They believe ignorance is the best course of action. They're 100% wrong.

We need safety and security, which "traditional values" offer, but they need to be balanced out with a healthy dose of change and growth.

Poverty is a problem, always has been, always will be... but the solution is not laws and restrictions on divorce (been there, didn't work well) or draconian laws (like China's) on who can have children.

 

[Genx87]

You don't buy into the theory, "because"? :awe:

These people would have children regardless of economic status.

 

[Genx87]

Some people are poor. And? You have to look at overall poverty rates and causes of poverty to come to a firm conclusion. Also, in conservative times, there wasn't even a care for child welfare, hence why they used to make children work, send them to clean dirty chimneys, etc.

Poverty existed in your idyllic society, yet you seem to ignore/dispute this. And it was frankly worse than today.

All I am saying is that social conservatism exists on a "just because" basis, and presume that things long ago were objectively good.

Soam I to take from this response you are claiming that having children out of wedlock doesnt contribute to being poor?

 

[Genx87]

There is no definition provided for "social conservatism." If I define it as holding everyone in the US to standards set by a group of religious fundamentalists, it's an absurd proposition. If instead I define it as the idea that right and wrong exist, are knowable, and legislation may therefore be used to render wrong behaviors illegal, then the debate is framed completely differently. The only argument I'm aware of against the latter is moral relativism which is fallacious. We may disagree on exactly which things are right or wrong, but that does not mean right and wrong do not exist.

This is really it. Social conservatism changes over time. Liberals of the past are conservatives today. Liberals today will be conservative in the future.

 

[dank69]

These people would have children regardless of economic status.

"Because." And what do you mean "these people"?

 

[zsdersw]

In many ways, the genie has been let out of the bottle; social conservatism has lost the battle to keep sex and everything that stems from it in the closet.

We now need to grow and learn and adapt.

 

[mammador]

Soam I to take from this response you are claiming that having children out of wedlock doesnt contribute to being poor?

It may, who is to say? I still contend that the poor today have an easier lot than in 1850 or the so-called "supreme era". At least today, we value an equal society and equal opportunities. We also have a safety net, which didn't exist in the past. I'm not condoning poverty, however there are many factors that cause it.

I think if persons take poor decisions, they must accept responsibility. Should the government take action against any and all actions that cause poverty? I am saying the causes of poverty are complex, as well as single parenthood.

 

[nehalem256]

I think if persons take poor decisions, they must accept responsibility. Should the government take action against any and all actions that cause poverty?

Sounds to me like you are secretly a conservative :awe:

I am saying the causes of poverty are complex, as well as single parenthood.

The causes of single parenthood are pretty simple. Having bastard children and divorce.

 

[Genx87]

"Because." And what do you mean "these people"?

Why is this difficult for you to understand?
"These people", the people we are discussing, the poor having children out of wedlock.

 

[dank69]

Why is this difficult for you to understand?
"These people", the people we are discussing, the poor having children out of wedlock.

Asking what you meant by "these people" was a joke. What is difficult for me to understand is how you can assert that poor people would have kids out of wedlock anyway when most data points to the opposite.

 

[Genx87]

It may, who is to say? I still contend that the poor today have an easier lot than in 1850 or the so-called "supreme era". At least today, we value an equal society and equal opportunities. We also have a safety net, which didn't exist in the past. I'm not condoning poverty, however there are many factors that cause it.

I think if persons take poor decisions, they must accept responsibility. Should the government take action against any and all actions that cause poverty? I am saying the causes of poverty are complex, as well as single parenthood.

It "may"? I think there is a pretty strong indication being single with children means you are at a higher risk of being at or below the poverty level. And the reason is pretty easy to determine as well. Children cost a lot of money. Having a single income makes it more difficult. Of course it isnt the sole reason for being in poverty. But it is imo a major contributor.

 

[Genx87]

Asking what you meant by "these people" was a joke. What is difficult for me to understand is how you can assert that poor people would have kids out of wedlock anyway when most data points to the opposite.

Are you discussing educated well informed people who have decent paying jobs deciding to have less children? Those arent the same people.

 

[nehalem256]

It "may"? I think there is a pretty strong indication being single with children means you are at a higher risk of being at or below the poverty level. And the reason is pretty easy to determine as well. Children cost a lot of money. Having a single income makes it more difficult. Of course it isnt the sole reason for being in poverty. But it is imo a major contributor.

Actually if you are single with no children and work at wallyworld you wouldn't be in poverty.

 

[dank69]

Are you discussing educated well informed people who have decent paying jobs deciding to have less children? Those arent the same people.

What are you going on about? Follow the conversation:

Or, poverty is a contributor to having children out of wedlock. :whiste:

I dont buy into the theory because one is poor that contributes to them having more children. In other words giving them money or they making more money to the point they arent poor isnt going to stop them from having children out of wedlock.

Poverty is a driving factor behind so many people having children out of wedlock, not the other way around. A rich person can choose to have a child out of wedlock and it won't make them poor. Poor people tend to have less education and their parents tend to have less education. Less overall education means less sex education which leads to unplanned babbies.

 

[Genx87]

What are you going on about? Follow the conversationoverty is a driving factor behind so many people having children out of wedlock, not the other way around. A rich person can choose to have a child out of wedlock and it won't make them poor. Poor people tend to have less education and their parents tend to have less education. Less overall education means less sex education which leads to unplanned babbies.

Like I said, we could give these people money, they could have a job that gets them out of poverty. They will still reproduce at rates they cant afford.

We may be agreeing on the reasons for why they do this(less educated, poor family environment, generally stupid people). But my point is a major contributor of being in poverty is having children out of wedlock. That is irrefuteable. The numbers show being a single parent puts people into higher risk of being in poverty.

Edit: Lets agree to disagree. I view having a cost incurred at low incomes as a major contributor towards being put into poverty. You want to blame the poverty for the reason people have children. I dont think we are going to change each others mind on this topic.

 

[Matt1970]

What are you going on about? Follow the conversationoverty is a driving factor behind so many people having children out of wedlock, not the other way around. A rich person can choose to have a child out of wedlock and it won't make them poor. Poor people tend to have less education and their parents tend to have less education. Less overall education means less sex education which leads to unplanned babbies.

You blame it on poverty then blame it on a lack of education and then a lack of sex education. Here's a little tidbit of knowledge for you. school is free though 12th grade.

 

[nehalem256]

What are you going on about? Follow the conversationoverty is a driving factor behind so many people having children out of wedlock, not the other way around. A rich person can choose to have a child out of wedlock and it won't make them poor.

A rich person can choose to do a lot of stupid things and it won't make them poor.

Poor people tend to have less education and their parents tend to have less education. Less overall education means less sex education which leads to unplanned babbies.

Is that why the rate of out of wedlock births was so high in the early 1900s?

 

[brycejones]

To answer the OP's basic question. NO

 

[Atreus21]

Why is social conservatism needed?

Is it because it comes from God? Or because "it was how things were long ago"?

The crux to me is that social conservatism presumes it's the absolute code. Can this be proven? And yes, long ago it was the norm. So what? Again, who says that the values of 1850 or some such are absolute? Are our values in 2013 absolute?

Social conservatives say that our society has many ills. lol... has there ever been a perfect society in human society? Who even defines perfection? 1850 had millions of people as slaves. Past centuries had mass epidemics. Was society then "perfect"?

So, what makes social conservatism so "absolute"?

If social conservatism to you is absolutism, is that to say that social liberalism is relativism?

If that's the case, then yes it definitely does matter if the US is less socially conservative.

 

[Atreus21]

When it comes to sex, social conservatives believe sex (and the human body) is something to be ashamed of... and that the spectrum of human sexuality shouldn't be explored. They believe ignorance is the best course of action. They're 100% wrong.

Disagree. If social conservatism is at all informed by religious belief, then the view on sex is that it is rightly restricted to married couples; that it be respected for what it is: the means of creating human beings, which makes it a very powerful force.

We need safety and security, which "traditional values" offer, but they need to be balanced out with a healthy dose of change and growth.

Change and growth? What do you mean by that?

 

[Slew Foot]

only stupid idiots want social conservatism. everybody knows this.

 

[zsdersw]

Disagree. If social conservatism is at all informed by religious belief, then the view on sex is that it is rightly restricted to married couples; that it be respected for what it is: the means of creating human beings, which makes it a very powerful force.

We're one of the few species that participates in sex for the pleasure of doing so... not just because we want or need to procreate. If religions were still allowed to dominate and control our lives, we'd never explore that facet of ourselves. We'd remain in ignorance, forced on us by shaming from various religions out of fear and a need to control.

Change and growth? What do you mean by that?

To move beyond the "that's the way we've always done it" and "that's the way it's always been".

 

[dank69]

You blame it on poverty then blame it on a lack of education and then a lack of sex education. Here's a little tidbit of knowledge for you. school is free though 12th grade.

And conservatives like you fight tooth and nail to keep proper sex ed out of public schools, now don't you?