does it matter if the US is less socially conservative?

[mammador]

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"?

 

[nextJin]

It has been the foundation of our society since the begining.

I'm apposed to it mind you, as it obviously prevents liberty for individuals who are outside the norm.

 

[mammador]

Ok, so because something is long-standing, this makes it good?

 

[nehalem256]

See the chart

 

[mammador]

Yeah, so single parenthood is a singular cause of poverty. That does prove your belief system as inherently good, due to one negative factor. You realise that in your society, wealth was far poorly distributed?

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah, so single parenthood is a singular cause of poverty.

I am not sure how you could infer that from the posted chart. But I think a 4+ fold increase in the rate of child poverty is a pretty big deal.

That does prove your belief system as inherently good, due to one negative factor.

A very big part of social conservatism is marriage and when it is appropriate to have children(in marriage).

This shows that there is a big reason to support the social conservative view in this respect.

You realise that in your society, wealth was far poorly distributed?

And this has what to do with single mothers? Or are you suggesting that we take money from hardworking moral individuals and give them to single mothers because they spread their legs?

What do you call a woman who gets paid for her spreading her legs again?

 

[mammador]

I am not sure how you could infer that from the posted chart. But I think a 4+ fold increase in the rate of child poverty is a pretty big deal.



A very big part of social conservatism is marriage and when it is appropriate to have children(in marriage).

This shows that there is a big reason to support the social conservative view in this respect.



And this has what to do with single mothers? Or are you suggesting that we take money from hardworking moral individuals and give them to single mothers because they spread their legs?

What do you call a woman who gets paid for her spreading her legs again?

Your point was to cite single parenthood is bad and that a liberal society is bad for causing this. I am saying that poverty has numerous causes, and you are clutching at straws for not using any objective basis for your argument.

I think it essentially boils down to what "people did long ago".

 

[nehalem256]

Your point was to cite single parenthood is bad and that a liberal society is bad for causing this. I am saying that poverty has numerous causes, and you are clutching at straws for not using any objective basis for your argument.

I think it essentially boils down to what "people did long ago".

The chart I posted in no way disputes the idea that poverty has numerous causes. In fact given that close to 10% of married couples with children are in poverty in would seem to confirm this...

It think it essentially boils down to you ignoring objective evidence that liberal values lead to more poverty.

It should be obvious why children with only one parent are more likely to be in poverty. But in case you have difficulty there is a sound indisputable mathematical basis.

Assume you have 2 adults and 2 children. The poverty line for a (4 person household) < (3 person household + 1 person household). And so in the case of a single parent family more there is clearly a greater chance of poverty even if the adults make the same income in both cases.

 

[OverVolt]

See the chart

Yup. Then the little buggers grow up to be Bubba Jr. drug dealer/convenience store robber extraordinare

 

[Genx87]

Your point was to cite single parenthood is bad and that a liberal society is bad for causing this. I am saying that poverty has numerous causes, and you are clutching at straws for not using any objective basis for your argument.

I think it essentially boils down to what "people did long ago".

Oh come on. You dont think having a child or children out of wedlock is a major contributor to being in poverty?

 

[dank69]

Oh come on. You dont think having a child or children out of wedlock is a major contributor to being in poverty?

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

 

[nehalem256]

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

So since America has gotten richer over time shouldn't the number of people having children out of wedlock have gone down? :hmm:

 

[bshole]

It think it essentially boils down to you ignoring objective evidence that liberal values lead to more poverty.

There is no objective evidence proving that. The Middle East is filled with conservative countries... all living in poverty.

 

[Incorruptible]

The US needs much less social conservatism. Many times it restricts liberty for people and violates their rights.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no objective evidence proving that. The Middle East is filled with conservative countries... all living in poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

 

[dank69]

So since America has gotten richer over time shouldn't the number of people having children out of wedlock have gone down? :hmm:

You'd have to show me the charts, since yours only goes back to 1990. However, just because the top 0.1% are getting filthy rich, doesn't necessarily mean life in the ghetto is smooth sailing.

 

[xBiffx]

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

Chicken or egg. :|

 

[Genx87]

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.

 

[nehalem256]

You'd have to show me the charts, since yours only goes back to 1990. However, just because the top 0.1% are getting filthy rich, doesn't necessarily mean life in the ghetto is smooth sailing.

So you don't think America was poorer in the 1930s when the out of wedlock birthrate was much lower.

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.

It could contribute to them having more children if they are unable to afford birth control.

But given that the out of wedlock birthrate was much lower in the 1930s when America was clearly poorer and contraception was much less available.

The only conclusion is that it is values that drive the bastard rate.

 

[dank69]

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.

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

 

[dank69]

So you don't think America was poorer in the 1930s when the out of wedlock birthrate was much lower.

...

So poverty rates reversly correlate to out of wedlock birthrates? You seem to be making my argument for me.

 

[zsdersw]

"Liberal values" drive society to change, to grow, to advance. In no way is change, growth, and advancement going to be free of adversity, but that doesn't mean that change, growth, and advancement should be avoided.

Stagnation is worse... much worse.

 

[mammador]

Oh come on. You dont think having a child or children out of wedlock is a major contributor to being in poverty?

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.

 

[mammador]

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.

Historical fact says as such. small families are only a recent trend.

 

[mammador]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

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

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...