Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might have forgot something that self organizes all the reasons you don't think fit the bill..........
When you have cloths, going nude is STUPID...
....Wow! Your logic is undeniable! I am totally convinced!
Is that like religious conservative re-branded and re-packaged with a catchy new name?
I explained it this way in Post #51:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
A "moral conservative" believes that there is one true moral code (typically in accordance with a holy book of some sort) and typically this moral code is what has been traditionally supported by the majority of the society in which they live. (Thus a "moral conservative" in one society might insist that women hide their entire bodies and wear a veil, while moral conservatives in another society might require that they must wear only skirts, never pants, but it is ok to see their hair, etc.)
The opposite of a moral conservative is a libertarian, or at least a social liberal. The guiding rule here is a respect for diversity and individual liberty. This is a "live and let live" or a "do no harm, but otherwise do as you will" type of attitude.
It is not quite the same as a religious conservative because a moral conservative does not have to be religious.
BTW, I pretty much made up the term "moral conservative" on the fly as I was writing my question (tho I'm sure the term has been used plenty). I would be happy to consider alternative terms that might be better. One alternative might be "moral traditionalist"? Also, as I pointed out in another post, it is possible for a moral conservative to vote for socially liberal candidates and/or support individual liberties (say, for example, a moral conservative who is also a libertarian). Such people might say "public nudity is immoral and I will not tolerate it on my home or business property, but will I defend the rights of other people and businesses to allow nudity on their property if they want."
IMHO - A "Moral Conservative" allows anyone to behave within the standards of "Moral Conservatism". The MC's stress the need for group identity over individual expression. The extension of this need for "correct or corrected" behavior, when extended into the political field leads directly to Tyranny as the Morally Conservative impose their will on all others because the MC’s will not tolerate “Immoral” behavior. This is the primary example of Mob Rule. Moral conservatism is the enemy of Freedom and Liberty.
Conservatives don't have a problem with that, but liberals don't seem to under that "[interfering] with the rights of others" includes taxing others to subsidize their life-styles.
I tend to have libertarian sympathies, so I don't feel like I'm on super firm ground here, but I will try it anyway: On the idea of individual liberty, we have a right to make and keep as much of wealth as we want, so long as the making and keeping of this wealth does not interfere with higher priority rights. For example, I don't have a right to make money by putting people or the natural environment at risk. (Obviously the notion of "risk" is not absolute, thus government is needed to determine how much risk is too much.) I think it is reasonable to insure that every child gets a good education (no matter how poor or backwards their parents are), and that every adult has access to on-going education as well. I think this sort of right has a higher priority than your right to keep all of your wealth. As for "subsidizing lifestyles," I'm not sure what this means, so I would need to consider some specific ideas on a case-by-case basis.
....Wow! Your logic is undeniable! I am totally convinced!
My only complaint, or at least observation is that the social aspect in harmony, regardless of rights should be on the table in some form. Man is a social being.
The individual represents, part of a whole, in human race. Regulation recognizes this. The overall unit, will drive in attention to harmony in existence .
Like I said before, theres nothing wrong with this nudity business. Society is not in my opinion ready fot it. Theres way too much brain washing in the sexual aspect of nakedness. The society, is clearly frustrated & depressed. The influence is demented(music-theater) . You will know when theres hope for recovery in the recovery of substance to influence.
Making changes that don't address or cloud the obvious and grave issue, is a waste of time.
All these issues are doing, is giving more distraction to a very noticeable and abnormal, sore.
G*damned anarchists. They would just LOVE for this country to turn lawless and let them do ANYTHING they wanted. Too bad they wouldn't survive. The biggest, baddest bully on the block would rule and that's not them.
IMHO - A "Moral Conservative" allows anyone to behave within the standards of "Moral Conservatism". The MC's stress the need for group identity over individual expression. The extension of this need for "correct or corrected" behavior, when extended into the political field leads directly to Tyranny as the Morally Conservative impose their will on all others because the MC’s will not tolerate “Immoral” behavior. This is the primary example of Mob Rule. Moral conservatism is the enemy of Freedom and Liberty.
so a liberal who tries to use a group like Move on to enforce Mob rule than allowing everyone individual expression is a moral liberal or amoral conservative. When the democrat party extends into th political field the desire for the type of behavior they see is correct is a moral Conservative?
It is the conservatives that wants limited gov which means more liberties and personal freedom.
These are the basic philosophies behind the 2 Parties, but in reality both groups do exactly the same things when in power, with minor variations: Push Free Trade and Globalization (even when the devastating effects have destroyed our economy), wage endless unwinnable wars halfway across the planet, continually grow the size and power of government, and spend taxpayer's money like water. The ultra-rich and powerful do very well under either Party.
It has become apparent to many that the 2 Parties are actually the same Party of empire-building Big Government, with a carefully split list of marketing-based "differences" that serve mainly to keep the split exactly 50-50. With 300 million people, it should be almost impossible to split anything exactly 50-50, and there certainly isn't a 50-50 split between liberals and conservatives (42% are conservative, 35% are moderate, and only 20% are liberal) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals.
Would a REAL Republican put individual liberties first? Absolutely! Would a modern-Party Republican? Possibly not. Why? Because the Religious Right has hijacked the Republican Party and set in place firm religious dictates that trump the basics of Republican philosophy. The "moral conservatives" thus have taken over the Party and ignore all "social liberals."
Thus the very large group of Americans who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative (like me) have been totally disenfranchised from the political process. I cannot support fiscal sanity in government without also supporting the lunatic-fringe who want women barefoot and pregnant, without even access to birth control or family planning information.
Of course, if a political party were to form that embraced social liberalism and fiscal conservatism (the best of both worlds), we could no longer have the 50-50 split. It would encompass all but the most religious and the most irresponsible.
The Religious Right has ridiculous influence in the modern Republican Party, and most of the Party's inconsistencies come from this unholy alliance. The Repubs SHOULD support abortion rights, since it goes directly against true Rebub ideals to have Washington Legislator intimately involved in one of the most private and personal decisions a woman is forced to make. When religion is supposed to be kept separate from government for the safety of all, and most Americans support a woman's right to abortion, it certainly makes no sense to supercede the basic Repub idea of freedom from absolute government oversight.
The Tea Party should have offered hope for those of us who know that the failure to reign in our bloated government means the end of our nation. However, it, too, was immediately hijacked by the Religious Right.
The Founding Fathers were incredibly prescient to know that mixing religion and politics would ruin America's chance at keeping the freedom it started out with. Too bad we (meaning our Leaders, not the average citizen) now reject the one approach to government that actually produced a Free Nation, in a world that rarely seen one.
Of course, if a political party were to form that embraced social liberalism and fiscal conservatism (the best of both worlds), we could no longer have the 50-50 split. It would encompass all but the most religious and the most irresponsible.
Back in the 1980s I was a big supporter of John Anderson, who tried to get the Republican nomination, but failed, so he ran as an independent. He had a very strong showing, for an independent, but couldn't over the entrenched 2-party system. Anywayz, of course the point of this little story is that he embraced social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
