does it matter if the US is less socially conservative?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
No it's not.

Yes, it is. The purpose of eating is nourishment, but unlike some animals we derive pleasure from it as well. Could we say then that the purpose of eating is as much pleasure as it is nourishment?

It's not ridiculous at all. Should Honda have stopped changing the Civic and Toyota stopped changing the Corolla back when they were beating every small American car?

We are all different and we all make different choices. There is no "right the first time" that remains "right all the time, now and forever" in a society as diverse as ours.

Honda changed either in response or anticipation of what its customers demanded. They were pursuing something better, not changing for the sake of change.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
That would seem to put a giant hole in your gay men are less likely to have heart disease theory.

4 in 5 gay men don't have HIV/AIDS.. so out of the subset of the population that is gay men, the vast majority do not have HIV/AIDS. That puts a giant hole in your "straight people are paying for all the AIDS drugs" theory.

Another hole in your stupid argument is that GLBT people comprise, at most, 5% of the population. Who has more health problems that are paid for by others? Heterosexuals at 95% of the population, or GLBT people at 5%? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Yes, it is. The purpose of eating is nourishment, but unlike some animals we derive pleasure from it as well. Could we say then that the purpose of eating is as much pleasure as it is nourishment?

Sex is done for pleasure in humans more than for procreation. What does that say about the purpose?

Honda changed either in response or anticipation of what its customers demanded. They were pursuing something better, not changing for the sake of change.

We're always pursuing something better, too. Change for the sake of change is in pursuit of something better.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
4 in 5 gay men don't have HIV/AIDS.. so out of the subset of the population that is gay men, the vast majority do not have HIV/AIDS. That puts a giant hole in your "straight people are paying for all the AIDS drugs" theory.

And do insurance companies charge gay men more to account for the higher rate of HIV/AIDS? Is such a practice even legal...

95%+ of men are straight. Since the cost of AIDS is spread amongst everyone this means that the vast majority of costs will be born by straights despite the fact that most people with HIV are gay.

Come on now this is not exactly rocket science.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Sex is done for pleasure in humans more than for procreation. What does that say about the purpose?

Nothing. I recall reading that evolution developed 2 ways to get animals to procreate.

One way, the way used in humans, was to make sex pleasurable so that people would want to do it.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation. The way nature gets people to engage in it is to make it pleasurable.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
No real conservative gives a shit about social political games. It has always been about economics - however, some social aspects play a part in the economics factor.

Bible thumping christian aspects - do not play a part in the economics. This thread, in all honesty - is stupid. Though nehalem makes a valid point at the beginning.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
So liberals screwed up society lets listen to liberals about what to do :hmm:



Okay lets think about this. The conservative view is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you only screw virgins how exactly do you get an STD? :hmm:

Whether they think it is "wrong" or not doesn't really matter since it won't MAGICALLY make it so... therefore, that part is just magical thinking on your part.


Or fatherlessness is what happens when women choose to have a bastard child from a man who never had any interest in being a father. ie a one-night-stand.

Given that liberals worship the right of a woman to choose to be a mother or not. It would seem to be hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to men.

If a man chooses to have sex and then chooses to abandon his responsibilities for the consequences, that is all his choice, not some fantasy "liberals" that you have concocted... what happened to that personal responsibility that conservatives always tout?


I would need you to actually try to piece together what your point is supposed to be instead of having me guess. Women are humans, and humans always think the grass is greener. Your two quotes follow that line of reasoning...

Do you think that women are less happy now than when they have zero control over their destiny and had to submit to their husbands, as they had to for 1000s of years? Don't be ridiculous. Women are not less happy than when they were property...
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
No real conservative gives a shit about social political games. It has always been about economics - however, some social aspects play a part in the economics factor.

Bible thumping christian aspects - do not play a part in the economics. This thread, in all honesty - is stupid. Though nehalem makes a valid point at the beginning.

There hasn't been an actual fiscal conservative as president in over 50 years, if ever... why chase a fantasy that doesn't exist?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Whether they think it is "wrong" or not doesn't really matter since it won't MAGICALLY make it so... therefore, that part is just magical thinking on your part.

When conservative ideology ruled sexual morality sex outside of wedlock was much less common. There is no "magic".

If a man chooses to have sex and then chooses to abandon his responsibilities for the consequences, that is all his choice, not some fantasy "liberals" that you have concocted... what happened to that personal responsibility that conservatives always tout?

What happened to consequence free sex? Or is that just something for women?

I thought personal responsibility went out the door with liberal sexual morality. Fatherless children are a direct result of the morality liberals wanted. You want to intermix liberal and conservative morality depending on what is more convenient for women.

I would need you to actually try to piece together what your point is supposed to be instead of having me guess. Women are humans, and humans always think the grass is greener. Your two quotes follow that line of reasoning...

Do you think that women are less happy now than when they have zero control over their destiny and had to submit to their husbands, as they had to for 1000s of years? Don't be ridiculous. Women are not less happy than when they were property...

Research shows they are less happy. Seems like you are the one engaging in "magical thinking".

And did you miss the quote where 84% of women wanting to be "property" of their husbands. And 1/3 in fact resenting their husbands for not being man enough to make that a reality.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It matters, but it's a mixed bag. As our society becomes more liberal we have more freedom, which is good. As our society becomes more liberal we have more welfare which some people use as an income stream, which is bad because it promotes single parent households as well as more children among people who get paid by the child and fewer children among people who have to pay for these programs.

Very little on this Earth is completely good or bad. Whether or not one thinks less social conservatism is good or bad depends largely on whether the additional freedom benefits one (or one's loved ones) versus one's view on the proper society. If one is gay, one loves having less social conservatism. If one believes that everyone should live by the rules by which one chooses to live, one may dislike less social conservatism.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
When conservative ideology ruled sexual morality sex outside of wedlock was much less common. There is no "magic".

Oh, if it is that simple, then you should have no problem showing proof of less infidelity back in the time you imagine!

What happened to consequence free sex? Or is that just something for women?

I thought personal responsibility went out the door with liberal sexual morality. Fatherless children are a direct result of the morality liberals wanted. You want to intermix liberal and conservative morality depending on what is more convenient for women.

You just ignored what I said and made up gibberish... The only way there can be fatherless children is if the man CHOOSES not to be involved. Period. That is their choice and conservatives are supposedly about personal responsibility... So, what is the problem here? What are you trying to say? That liberals are forcing men to abandon their children? Is that some sort of joke?

Research shows they are less happy. Seems like you are the one engaging in "magical thinking".

And did you miss the quote where 84% of women wanting to be "property" of their husbands. And 1/3 in fact resenting their husbands for not being man enough to make that a reality.

Umm, I just explained that people always think things are greener on the other side. How many of those women actually LIVED in those times? Is the news flash that people don't like working and are petty, as well as lacking perspective? Because that is all those 'studies' show... Additionally, two studies or surveys do not create fact.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
If a man chooses to have sex and then chooses to abandon his responsibilities for the consequences, that is all his choice, not some fantasy "liberals" that you have concocted... what happened to that personal responsibility that conservatives always tout?


Perosnal responsibility begins in remaining a virgin until marriage.
If you cant handel that responsibility, then you certainly arent ready for the responsibility of being a parent.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Oh, if it is that simple, then you should have no problem showing proof of less infidelity back in the time you imagine!

Why are you trying to make it about infidelity instead of pre-marital sex?

I mean other than the fact that there was obviously less pre-marital sex in the past?

You just ignored what I said and made up gibberish... The only way there can be fatherless children is if the man CHOOSES not to be involved. Period. That is their choice and conservatives are supposedly about personal responsibility... So, what is the problem here? What are you trying to say? That liberals are forcing men to abandon their children? Is that some sort of joke?

There is no gibberish. You want liberal social morality to apply to women and conservative social morality to apply to men.

Liberals hold sacrosanct the right of women not to be burdened by children they do not want. According to liberals the choice for whether a child is born is entirely up to the woman. Logically if a child is born it is therefore the fault of the woman if she chooses to have a child with a man who does not want to be a father.

Conservatives are about personal responsibility. But we are discussing a world where liberal morality rules and therefore personal responsibility is not important.

You appear to be saying conceding that in a conservative world there would be less fatherlessness since personal responsibility would cause them to take responsibility for their children...

Umm, I just explained that people always think things are greener on the other side. How many of those women actually LIVED in those times? Is the news flash that people don't like working and are petty, as well as lacking perspective? Because that is all those 'studies' show...

That would apparently be a newsflash to feminists. After all they are the ones that decided it was necessary for women to work. And think "having it all" involves having a fantastic rewarding career. Sounds to me like they think work is fun.

Additionally, two studies or surveys do not create fact.

Mindlessly asserting feminist ideology does not create fact either.

But hey here is yet another article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissa...llennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/

Funny that these kinds of articles don't exist for men huh?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Why are you trying to make it about infidelity instead of pre-marital sex?

I mean other than the fact that there was obviously less pre-marital sex in the past?

Care to show proof?

There is no gibberish. You want liberal social morality to apply to women and conservative social morality to apply to men.

Liberals hold sacrosanct the right of women not to be burdened by children they do not want. According to liberals the choice for whether a child is born is entirely up to the woman. Logically if a child is born it is therefore the fault of the woman if she chooses to have a child with a man who does not want to be a father.

Conservatives are about personal responsibility. But we are discussing a world where liberal morality rules and therefore personal responsibility is not important.


You appear to be saying conceding that in a conservative world there would be less fatherlessness since personal responsibility would cause them to take responsibility for their children...

You are discussing a world where there are fatherless children, yet you don't hold those fathers accountable.. that is what I don't understand... Fathers can be deadbeats. This has to do with human nature. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from being responsible. Don't make excuses for them!

That would apparently be a newsflash to feminists. After all they are the ones that decided it was necessary for women to work. And think "having it all" involves having a fantastic rewarding career. Sounds to me like they think work is fun.


I have yet to meet a feminism in real life. Women, and many men, fought to allow women the ability to provide for themselves and not be slaves to men. Women under 40 right now did not do any of the fighting. They did not live in the past and therefore it might sound alluring on paper.. hence, the grass is greener. What is the shock here?


Mindlessly asserting feminist ideology does not create fact either.

But hey here is yet another article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissa...llennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/

Funny that these kinds of articles don't exist for men huh?

Do you see mass demonstrations and pushes towards a reversion to when women had no power and submitted to their husbands? I sure don't...
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Care to show proof?
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so142/premarital/premaritalTs.htm

You are discussing a world where there are fatherless children, yet you don't hold those fathers accountable.. that is what I don't understand... Fathers can be deadbeats. This has to do with human nature. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from being responsible. Don't make excuses for them!

Under liberal morality it is fully the woman's choice to have a child or not.

If a man has a one night stand with a woman and makes a gift of his seed to a woman why would you expect him to be responsible for the child? Liberals do not expect a woman to be responsible for a child created, even after it is born (cough safehave laws cough).

Why are liberals always making excuses for the choice they say are fully women's?

I believe you did a good job of putting it. Under liberal morality the idea of personal responsibility doesn't really exist and therefore there is nothing stopping them from being irresponsible. Fatherlessness is exactly what you would expect from liberalism.

I have yet to meet a feminism in real life. Women, and many men, fought to allow women the ability to provide for themselves and not be slaves to men. Women under 40 right now did not do any of the fighting. They did not live in the past and therefore it might sound alluring on paper.. hence, the grass is greener. What is the shock here?

And according to surveys the grass really was greener. That is the shock.

Do you see mass demonstrations and pushes towards a reversion to when women had no power and submitted to their husbands? I sure don't...

Are you creating a complete caricature of how things were 50 years ago...
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
"I think the major, perhaps only, conclusion we can reach from this data is that changes in prevalence rates have occurred over time. This conclusion is also confirmed by European research. Apparently, there have been times in the past during which premarital sex was quite common, and times when it was much less frequent. "


Under liberal morality it is fully the woman's choice to have a child or not.

If a man has a one night stand with a woman and makes a gift of his seed to a woman why would you expect him to be responsible for the child? Liberals do not expect a woman to be responsible for a child created, even after it is born (cough safehave laws cough).

Why are liberals always making excuses for the choice they say are fully women's?

I believe you did a good job of putting it. Under liberal morality the idea of personal responsibility doesn't really exist and therefore there is nothing stopping them from being irresponsible. Fatherlessness is exactly what you would expect from liberalism.

You keep blaming some boogeyman of fantastical "liberalism" for fatherlessness... If the guy willingly has sex, then he could willingly choose to be a father if a child is born. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEADBEATS!

And according to surveys the grass really was greener. That is the shock.



Are you creating a complete caricature of how things were 50 years ago...

No, I'm telling you exactly how things were. Women couldn't support themselves and therefore literally had no control over anything in their lives.. they had to submit to their husband or do what? Move back home?

Surveys given to people who haven't experienced another way of life might indeed want to try something 'new' to them... nothing special here. Where are the mass demonstrations or even ONE demonstration towards what you claim to be what is wanted?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
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.

Sure is, and social conservatives do everything they can to make sure they sexual education, and birth control is as dumbed down and taboo as possible during that free "education".
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
And do insurance companies charge gay men more to account for the higher rate of HIV/AIDS? Is such a practice even legal...

95%+ of men are straight. Since the cost of AIDS is spread amongst everyone this means that the vast majority of costs will be born by straights despite the fact that most people with HIV are gay.

Come on now this is not exactly rocket science.

You're right, it's not rocket science... but even then, it's still too complex for you.

Let's see... something which affects 20% of at most 5% of the population, spread out over the entire population is going to be a lot less costly than, say, all of the health problems associated with the relatively low amount of exercise that straight men get compared to gay men... and the higher obesity among straight men... that gay men pay for.

It's a stupid argument, anyway, but then again that's why you made it... because you're an asshole who doesn't have anything but ignorance and stupidity to offer when it comes to gay issues.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Nothing. I recall reading that evolution developed 2 ways to get animals to procreate.

One way, the way used in humans, was to make sex pleasurable so that people would want to do it.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation. The way nature gets people to engage in it is to make it pleasurable.

Humans aren't the only animals that have sex purely for pleasure. We humans have evolved ourselves (through civilization, societal relationships, and technology) to engage in sex more for pleasure than for procreation. Whatever evolution created at the start of humanity, it has since become more a pleasure than a biological procreative need.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Humans aren't the only animals that have sex purely for pleasure.

That is basically what I said. Making sex pleasurable is an evolutionary adaptation in some animals to make them reproduce.

We humans have evolved ourselves (through civilization, societal relationships, and technology) to engage in sex more for pleasure than for procreation.

I don't think you understand what evolution is.

Whatever evolution created at the start of humanity, it has since become more a pleasure than a biological procreative need.

You appear to be failing to understand how things work. The whole reason sex is pleasurable is to get people to have it, so that babies will happen.

Evolution in no way cares if you are having sex because its pleasurable or because you are trying to create a baby. Both are equally capable of causing a baby.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I don't think you understand what evolution is.

I don't think you understand that evolution is not just a genetic thing.

You appear to be failing to understand how things work. The whole reason sex is pleasurable is to get people to have it, so that babies will happen.

Evolution in no way cares if you are having sex because its pleasurable or because you are trying to create a baby. Both are equally capable of causing a baby.

You appear to be incapable of understanding that evolution occurs via more than just genetics.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You keep blaming some boogeyman of fantastical "liberalism" for fatherlessness... If the guy willingly has sex, then he could willingly choose to be a father if a child is born. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEADBEATS!

Sounds to me like you are trying to engage in social shaming to get men to take personal responsibility. Again this sounds to me like you want conservative morality to apply to men

I am saying if you eliminate conservative values things like "STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEADBEATS" doesn't make sense. Well except for the fact that liberals are massive hypocrites and only want their morality to apply to women and still want men to "man up"(which is a conservative idea).

Basically you are throwing a fit because men are living based on liberal morality and this leads to fatherlessness. Under liberal morality there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man choosing not to be a father. His body, his choice.

No, I'm telling you exactly how things were. Women couldn't support themselves and therefore literally had no control over anything in their lives.. they had to submit to their husband or do what? Move back home?

Surveys given to people who haven't experienced another way of life might indeed want to try something 'new' to them... nothing special here. Where are the mass demonstrations or even ONE demonstration towards what you claim to be what is wanted?

BS. Continually reciting feminist propaganda doesn't make it true.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,067
1,550
126
Social conservatism is a plague on this nation. It has corrupted and continues to corrupt.

Once we can move past it's obsolete and antiquated stupidity, we will be better off as a nation, perhaps at that time we will even be able to join the civilized world.
 

mammador

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,128
1
76
OK, social conservatives, do you detest social equality since it didn't exist in 1850?

or don't you care, since you're all white and male? Or I guess "God" didn't say so in the Bible, so it cannot be so....
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,648
449
126
The so-called social conservatives voted in a liar and a cheater as their congressman in South Carolina recently. These same people probably go to church, read their holy books and then do the same things, yet they are supposedly more "moral" than somebody who does not adhere to these things. Are they any better than a non-Church goer? Or everything that happens at a place of worship stays there? Then why even go there if you're not going to follow the teachings?