What do conservatives think about equality ?

[jonks]

The definitions of conservative and liberal have changed with time - this is hardly news. 500 years ago, we'd all be flaming radicals for believing in the popular election of leaders.

I'm not talking about 500 years ago, I'm speaking of recent decades. The gov elect of VA wrote a paper in 1989, when he was a 34 year old lawyer and older than I am now, about how working women were detrimental to the family. He's since said his views have changed and he no longer believes what he wrote back then. Well yay for progress, but he was hardly a child when he wrote it. And when polls taken in 2005 asked if people would vote for a qualified woman for president, 94% of Dems said yes compared to 76% of Republicans. That's not for equal opportunity.

After being dragged kicking and screaming, most of the GOP today claims to be for equal opportunity for gays in everything except marriage, but many states, mostly in the south, have banned any similar institution such as domestic partnerships, civil unions, and have even banned gay adoption. That's not equal opportunity.

I know I'm conflating conservative/liberal with gop/dem but most polls use party ID and it's as close as we have.

 

[soulcougher73]

So much misinformation... where to start.

Homosexuals have just as much chance to marry as we do. Any man, homosexual or not, has the chance to marry a woman.

Way to miss the point LOL

 

[Red Dawn]

One such little turd is going to more than likely get put on my ignore list today. It really does make life much more pleasant here.

If you do that who's going to read Spidey's nonsnese?

 

[PJABBER]

Er, yes, and just as factual that any black man used to be able to marry so long as he married a black woman, so no inequality there either right? And any black person could go to public school, just not with white children. The sad thing is this makes perfect sense in your mind, and people who don't get that are the dumb ones.

Your position is that a gay person has every right to marry someone they would never want to marry, and thus has equality.

You should be embarassed to be using this argument, I haven't seen one reputable intelligent conservative ever make this argument, which is probably why you repeat it. It's a horrible talking point, illogical in the extreme, offensive, and idiotic. Par.

I think of marriage as being an institution for kids. If you don't want to have kids, or you can't, you don't have much incentive or reason to marry.

Marriage and the nuclear family concept is a construct, an evolution and refinement of mankind's impetus to survive as a species in that it can be a pretty good way to provide a structure for having and raising kids under a very wide array of circumstances. Does it fail? Sure, humans are highly imperfect and they cannot or do not fulfill the roles they take on.

Those who advocate varietal marriage - marriage for homosexuals who cannot have kids except by adopting or, in the case of lesbians, by taking sperm from a non-spouse, polygamy, marriage to inanimate objects, etc. - are basically arguing a case for self-centeredness of some kind rather than the general welfare of kids.

Can someone who wants to marry a tree be a good parent? Maybe. But it is going to be the kids that are going to be put at risk of growing up kind of strange where the parent already has achieved that state. It certainly might be an injustice to subject children to the unbalanced vagaries of the range of human oddity and one of the core reasons for civilization is the protection of children when they are most vulnerable.

If you as an adult want to have sex with a tree, or do the same sex thing, be my guest. I don't care as long as it is a mutual consenting affair between adults. You want to raise kids in your own image, which can be highly distorted, ie NAMBLA, then you have a much harder case to make. And even notable exceptions here do not make for much of a rule.

Society is self-preservative, you want to change it to legitimize your society ending predilections, be prepared to fight to show how your tree loving contributes to the society's continuation as a viable and sustainable entity. If you can't, society owes you nothing and can and should exile you to found your own attempt at doing better, if you can.

 

[Tom]

Let's see Tom. I'm 55 and recently retired. I started work at age 12 and have worked consistently ever since. At age 16 I earned enough to start having to file a tax return. For 43 years I've paid Federal Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. I've lived in Michigan my entire life and this state has an income tax so I've paid that too for 43 years.

I've paid sales tax on nearly every purchase (some food items are excluded here). I've paid it on every car I've bought whether used or new. I've paid tax on all my utility bills through those years. I've paid numerous taxes on every gallon of gasoline I've consumed to date. I've paid taxes to several cities I've worked in over the years even though I didn't live in them.

When I bought my first home I got the pleasure of paying property taxes. I married late in life at 39 and have no children. Yet I've had to pay school taxes all these years to educate other people's children. Some of those children have vandalized my mailbox, my home and my cars through the years. Some of those children have broken into my home and stolen things from me.

I've paid taxes on interest I earned from after tax dollars saved. I've paid capital gains taxes on investments. I've paid taxes on dividends.

I've even paid taxes on taxes.

I've worked all those years and paid all those taxes including the ones I've forgotten about or just plain overlooked. Everything I own, everything, is the result of my labor. Everything was bought with that portion of my income that the government deemed was mine to keep. In their eyes, I'm still not giving enough and I haven't given enough. They're pushing through Congress right now legislation to take still more of it away from me. They're probably going to succeed.

Then there's people like yourself. People who have the gall to tell me that I didn't actually earn what I worked for. That I profited from the work of others and in a sense received a "gift". You have not one fucking clue son what I did to earn a living, what I have sacrificed and what I may sacrifice in the future to have what little I have. People like yourself would like to take away what I have. You wrap your petty, selfish, childish thoughts up in a neat little socialist wrapper that makes you feel justified in your laziness. I came into this life with nothing. I have inherited nothing. Everything I have is because of my labor.

Keep looking for shortcuts in life or act like a man, roll up your sleeves and start making it happen all on your own. My guess is you'll be looking for a handout for quite some time.

Sorry you seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course you earned what you worked for. but the value of that work was increased because your part of a society. that is the gift I'm referring to.

btw, I'm 53 and also started working when I was 16.

 

[cubeless]

Sorry you seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course you earned what you worked for. but the value of that work was increased because your part of a society. that is the gift I'm referring to.

btw, I'm 53 and also started working when I was 16.

please... the value of everyones work is equally raised due to the benefits of society... now you are going to decide who benefitted more from society? this is where fascisim starts...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Any discussion around equality usually boils down to equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity.

Conservatives tend to favor equality of opportunity. They perceive government imposed equality as an artificial construct that creates a framework of entitlement and negatively impacts societal drive and ambition. Conservatives tend to favor a competitive environment. What conservatives overlook are societal biases, glass ceilings and other sometimes invisible obstacles that prevent the playing field from ever truly being level. However, conservatives also tend to reject notions that society today needs to make amends for the sins of the past.

Liberals tend to favor equality of outcome. They perceive government imposed equality as a necessary step towards achieving societal balance, and place more value on creating a level playing field. Liberals tend to overlook the fact that despite their best intentions, there are those who will abuse and manipulate the very programs set in place to achieve equality. Similarly, imposed equality inevitably infringes on the rights of others, and sometimes swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, which arguable contradicts the notion of a level playing field.

The political pandering by both conservatives and liberals plays to the fears of target demographics. Neither ideology wants to achieve true equality, because perceived inequity is a source of political power.

 

[cubeless]

...not that the fact that 'true equality' is totally unattainable under any solution...

 

[PJABBER]

Sorry you seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course you earned what you worked for. but the value of that work was increased because your part of a society. that is the gift I'm referring to.

btw, I'm 53 and also started working when I was 16.

The value of the kind of work you do, even the kind of work possible, is most certainly derived from the level of the society.

Being a nuclear physicist in a destitute village in Somalia won't make you a contributing member of that society. But Man is almost infinitely adaptable, so, if willing and physically able, the physicist can, in extremis, become a subsistence farmer, so long as he is supported through that education by a kind sponsor, in lieu of family.

It is unlikely the Somali farmer's son will have the overriding vision to aspire to being a scientist much less have ready access to the years of specialized education required, but there are some surprisingly easy ways to access education and opportunity even in the most desolate areas for the brilliant and determined few. Talent does have a way of outing itself. And there are many that seek to support those who might aspire to greatness.

I work with two guys, war orphans and refugees, who did not get more than the most cursory educations as kids. Natural geniuses, they started formal schooling in their late teens in missionary settings and were PhDs by their mid-20s.

The idea of economic freedom is moderated or channeled necessarily from the circumstances one finds oneself in by birth or, in more fortunate cases, by choice as in the case of a mobile international executive or engineer trained to function outside a strict geographical boundary.

The idea of freedom in work is a simple one - you still need to function at the level of the society you are born to, at least at first, but your achievements should only be limited by your own abilities and not those of others. All should have a chance but none are guaranteed success.

Of course, I am only expressing the "conservative" position here. Others can and do argue that those who excel do so only unfairly/unjustly on the backs of others that achieve less or differently.

Extrapolating here, those who excel must then, of societal necessity, be disallowed special recognition or reward or such reward must be used for the benefit (ie money) of those less successful or capable to allow all to achieve at least the most modest level of mediocrity. After all, feelings will most certainly be hurt if one does better than another.

The jealousy thing is something most people never outgrow. And the excuses for a failure to strive are legion.

 

[n yusef]

I think that most conservatives will agree that all children should have the same opportunities to manufacture their own success. But, the status quo is that some people have more and different opportunities than others; empirical data shows that ones starting position--obviously economic class, and more controversially one's race, gender, sexuality, disability status, etc.--is highly correlated with one's success as an adult.

In my estimation, honest conservatives don't deny the existence of inequality of opportunities, but for a plethora of non-trivial reasons often do not support state action to level, or as they might frame it, redistribute opportunities. Dishonest conservatives argue that opportunities are equal, and therefore imply that our societies' lack of social and economic mobility is solely due to the personal failings of the poor and working class, women, people of color, sexual minorities, etc.

In many ways, I'm sympathetic to the honest conservative position, although I don't agree with it's small-government ideological underpinnings; conservatives are right when they assert that many of the social programs that target poverty, especially among women and people of color, have been disappointing and in some ways counter-productive due to bad incentives.

Real change will come from educational and judicial reform. But, not in the ways that are frequently mentioned in the mainstream discourse; throwing money at the problem (leftists) or singling out teachers unions (righties) aren't real solutions. . .instead, we need more institutions like the Harlem Children's Zone and MATCH in Boston (full disclosure: my brother teaches there), and innovative approaches to punishment (Mark Kleinman's When Brute Force Fails leads the way in this regard (I can't recommend his conversation with Reihan Salam enough).

 

[Carmen813]

I think of marriage as being an institution for kids. If you don't want to have kids, or you can't, you don't have much incentive or reason to marry.

Marriage and the nuclear family concept is a construct, an evolution and refinement of mankind's impetus to survive as a species in that it can be a pretty good way to provide a structure for having and raising kids under a very wide array of circumstances. Does it fail? Sure, humans are highly imperfect and they cannot or do not fulfill the roles they take on.

Those who advocate varietal marriage - marriage for homosexuals who cannot have kids except by adopting or, in the case of lesbians, by taking sperm from a non-spouse, polygamy, marriage to inanimate objects, etc. - are basically arguing a case for self-centeredness of some kind rather than the general welfare of kids.

Can someone who wants to marry a tree be a good parent? Maybe. But it is going to be the kids that are going to be put at risk of growing up kind of strange where the parent already has achieved that state. It certainly might be an injustice to subject children to the unbalanced vagaries of the range of human oddity and one of the core reasons for civilization is the protection of children when they are most vulnerable.

If you as an adult want to have sex with a tree, or do the same sex thing, be my guest. I don't care as long as it is a mutual consenting affair between adults. You want to raise kids in your own image, which can be highly distorted, ie NAMBLA, then you have a much harder case to make. And even notable exceptions here do not make for much of a rule.

Society is self-preservative, you want to change it to legitimize your society ending predilections, be prepared to fight to show how your tree loving contributes to the society's continuation as a viable and sustainable entity. If you can't, society owes you nothing and can and should exile you to found your own attempt at doing better, if you can.

I'm sorry PJABBER, but one of the tenets of being a sound parent should be keeping your sex life completely separate from your children. Homosexual orientation does not automatically indicate that you are a pervert. Homosexual orientation does not mean you try to raise a child to be homosexual. It also disturbs me that people seem to think that granting equal rights to homosexuals somehow opens the door to legalizing marrying non-human/inanimate objects. I mean, can we get our heads out of the sand for a minute.

Studies have shown that what matters for children to have successful home lives if for them to have two parents that love them. Gender of the parents doesn't matter. There is absolutely no adverse psychological damage done by having homosexual parents, provided that they actually care and love for the child. If you are really concerned about protecting children, you should be railing against divorce, which is much more damaging.

In our society there are numerous incentives to marry which have nothing to do with childbearing. I'm assuming I don't have to list them here.

 

[PJABBER]

n yusef, I was working in Manhattan when the Harlem Children's Zone was first started and it was one of several attempts to overcome environmental/societal disadvantage there. I remember it as being quite a struggle to make a difference though the community was mostly supportive, especially some of the church based community groups there that are a big part of Harlem culture. The "from pre-birth" aspect of the program is unique and absolutely necessary to develop the parenting skills which are key to the program's successes. I am glad to see it has expanded to the extent that it has. Geoffrey Canada is a true American hero.

 

[Mursilis]

that's what I meant by setting aside how it's paid for. could be whatever an individual is willing to pay for themselves and that's it.

same as right to pursue happiness doesn't require people to do so.

I'm not understanding your response here. Are you saying there's an inherent right to healthcare, or merely a right to access to healthcare (as I believe)?

 

[bfdd]

The definitions of conservative and liberal have changed with time - this is hardly news. 500 years ago, we'd all be flaming radicals for believing in the popular election of leaders.

500 years ago? Hell when the USA was first founded it was slanderous to call someone a democrat because the term was directly linked to direct democracy. Something our Founding Fathers had a great distaste for.

 

[shadow9d9]

Your hatred may come from ignorance. Have you considered that? Do you have a personal reason for your hatred or is it just that you were taught to hate?

I've got to say that I actually enjoy reading this thread, though it may veer a bit off track as we indulge in describing the backgrounds which form our thinking and perspectives on equality and freedom. Though not essential to expressing opinion, it is good to reflect on the roots which bring us to where we are right now. So thanks to the OP for allowing that in the midst of all the noise.

So you had no response. Not surprising. Just an attempt to twist things with semantics.

 

[shadow9d9]

Your tunnel vision has led you to completely miss the point of my post. A post that was not even directed at you.

Bitter, no. Very happy to not have kids of my own. My wife has two and we have three grandchildren so far.

You miss the point of many posts here. One of them I called you out on yesterday and you still don't know what you overlooked in that one.

A movie quote for you. A movie with a tragic ending. Very apropos.

"You may think you know what you're dealing with, but believe me, you don't"

Oh, I know it wasn't directed at me.. I'm just telling you what you sound like. Bitter and angry.

 

[PJABBER]

I'm sorry PJABBER, but one of the tenets of being a sound parent should be keeping your sex life completely separate from your children. Homosexual orientation does not automatically indicate that you are a pervert. Homosexual orientation does not mean you try to raise a child to be homosexual. It also disturbs me that people seem to think that granting equal rights to homosexuals somehow opens the door to legalizing marrying non-human/inanimate objects. I mean, can we get our heads out of the sand for a minute.

Studies have shown that what matters for children to have successful home lives if for them to have two parents that love them. Gender of the parents doesn't matter. There is absolutely no adverse psychological damage done by having homosexual parents, provided that they actually care and love for the child. If you are really concerned about protecting children, you should be railing against divorce, which is much more damaging.

In our society there are numerous incentives to marry which have nothing to do with childbearing. I'm assuming I don't have to list them here.

You are right in that the most important aspect of good parenting is the demonstration of a true love and respect between partners and an extension of that love to a child that thus finds self-worth and validation. Sexual orientation, to my mind, in and of itself, is not and should not be a factor so longer it is kept private.

Of course, in the real world kids do wander into bedrooms, other kids and other parents talk, intimacies are overheard - a home is not a sterile environment by any means. Where do you draw the line - holding hands, kissing, fondling? And what if the couple are particularly comfortable with and practice public affection outside the home? Sexual bigotry is common most places and it is sure to rebound on the kids. Do they then defend the lifestyles of their parents and in doing so accept them for themselves, for better or for worse?

The problem is that we do not live in a perfect world, though kids do seem to survive and prosper despite that. The predisposition toward dysfunction of all kinds seems to come in multiples. An alcoholic might also be bipolar might be sexually promiscuous might be a violence prone abuser. The consequence is that dysfunctional parents are not able to offer the requisite support on many levels and manifest the dysfunction on many levels. Sexual orientation, or maybe better said, sexual orientation choice, may be a cautionary note, or maybe not.

Are homosexuals more pre-disposed toward dysfunction in the same way an alcoholic is? That is a loaded question and I do not know the answer, maybe someone else here does. There should be some honest research out there that has not been varnished by either bigotry or political correctness.

The one aspect that I have the greatest concern with as a parent myself deals with gender identification - the environmental versus biological predisposition toward sexual choice and really choice of all kinds as occurs daily in parenting.

I know kids emulate parents, they want to be just like them, at least until they get to be teenagers, then chuck you farley. As the vast majority of kids are not biologically oriented toward same sex or tree attraction, is it fair to them for two adults predisposed to tree loving to adopt and directly or indirectly apply an environmental influence, the intent to be nurturing notwithstanding.

See, adults should be allowed to be as free as possible to pursue their goals in life, including the possibility of love and sexual satisfaction with other adults, or consenting trees. This, however, does not to my mind extend to indulging in an extraordinary experiment in same sex parenting through adoption, for example. You may call that bigotry, but I kind of think of it as giving a kid that already has a lot of strikes against him or her an extra chance at living an ordinary life.

The above is a philosophical musing. I know gay male parents where the birth mother divorced and the kids seem fine. But there is still a mother involved. Don't think I know any lesbian couples raising kids, but that would seem to be a more likely pairing for parenting. I know mixed race parents and the kids are fine, but I am pretty much culturally color blind and gender identification is considerably different than race or cultural identification. The overriding thing I see is love and respect and, most importantly, an above average understanding of the boundaries in those families.

My concern is that, human failing being what it is, parenting should be considered a privilege and not a right. Having a child naturally, however, is considered by most to be an expression of personal freedom to raise kids as you see fit and not as kids might best be raised. Hell, the ultimate expression of this is abortion - the killing of a fetus is considered a personal right by many instead of murder, and it is a right guaranteed by law. Of course, a fetus can't express its outrage at being cut apart and vacuumed out, can it?

To my mind, adoption should be only by the strictest of application, and most definitely a privilege extended to those best able to care in the best way for the interests of the child and not an indulgence in the narcissism of the prospective adopting parents. Sexual and lifestyle choices, along with many other considerations, do need to be discriminating factors, IMO.

And yes, divorce sucks. That it has become so common is likely a further expression of people's failure to find happiness from within and the concomitant demand that someone else has full responsibility for your personal satisfaction.

 

[BrownTown]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

This is EXACTLY the difference in how "liberals" and "conservatives" think now IMO.

See the truth of the world is that life IS NOT FAIR, people are not created equal. No matter what you do you cannot change that, some people wil lalways end up getting screwed, others will get stuff they don't deserve.

A conservative believes in a "level playing field" where the hard working person can make more money than the lazy person, where the smart person can have more stuff than the simpleton. This isn't really fair to everyone though since a person with a genetically inferior brain, or whose parents could not afford good schools will be put at a huge disadvantage due to something out of their control.

That unfairness leads the liberal to think of course that those who are gifted should help out those who are less fortunate. This makes sense, however it ends up hindering those who are the best equipped for society. For example why would a hard working person want to try and make lots of money if there is a 80% tax bracket for their income level since this means they essentially are working their ass off and all their money is going to people who don't even work at all. The economy cannot function if the best and brightest are not given some extra incentive to compensate them for the greater contributions to society.

It really is a balancing act like everything in life, you need to find a way to reward hard work and intelligence without completely leaving those less fortunate in the dust. That is why we have progressive tax brackets and welfare etc.

However you can go overboard. For example when considering a persons "REAL" wage you need to compare what they are making per hour to what they could be making for sitting on their asses doing nothing. I know in some states the welfare is high enough that a minimum wage job only ears a person like 1-2$ more than doing nothing. Not much motivation to go out and get a job when you only make such a tiny amount more money.

I know at least IMO the biggest problem where we are right now is that ~40% (and rising) of eligible voters don't pay taxes. As the taxes on the "rich" keep getting higher and higher i think in a few years it will rally start getting to the point where people are just goign to give up on working hard. I work 72 hours a week right now and I know its a real kick in the nuts for me when every paycheck i see >1000$ going away in taxes and i know that money is going to pay for some guy in the ghetto who has never worked a day in their life. Adn the real kicker of course is that dudes vote cancels mine out plus he probably thinks i am an asshole, so basically sometimes I just wish all those people would say "thank you" for subsidizing their worthless existence

 

[Vic]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

You are amazingly brainwashed....

 

[Patranus]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

Yup.

 

[Vic]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for individuals within certain social-cultural-economic groups, but in unequal opportunity between those social-cultural-economic groups.

Liberals believe in equal opportunity for all, regardless of social-cultural-economic grouping.

Socialists believe in equal outcomes for all.

Fixed.

 

[cubby1223]

Or you could say that in an equal world two people working just as hard get the same amount of pizza for their work... which is what liberals are going for.

This thread could be pretty useful, might help dispel some misconceptions.

While yes, that is what "progressives" seem to hope for, but in reality that notion is a pile of crap. Should the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's for 8 hours every day be paid the same as a skill neurosurgeon saving lives every day?

Equal pay for equal work breeds laziness, we would all strive to be ditch-diggers.

Unequal pay is what motivates people to fill the gaps needed for society to function.

 

[PJABBER]

Fixed.

You lie.

 

[fskimospy]

While yes, that is what "progressives" seem to hope for, but in reality that notion is a pile of crap. Should the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's for 8 hours every day be paid the same as a skill neurosurgeon saving lives every day?

Equal pay for equal work breeds laziness, we would all strive to be ditch-diggers.

Unequal pay is what motivates people to fill the gaps needed for society to function.

No it isn't. Stop inventing positions for people to hold. Nothing in the example had the two people holding jobs with widely varying skill levels and demand levels, and not a single person in this thread made anything close to that statement. (except for the right wing people doing the same thing you just did in inventing strawmen to attack.)

I simply cannot understand how your concept of what progressives think can be this far off the mark. Progressives are not communists, just like Republicans are not fascists.

 

[cubeless]

You lie.

actually, i think he hit it right on the head... it why liberals (of the type described) are deluded at best and just plain fascists on the other end...