Questions for conservatives
 

Why does it matter if somebody acts like an *******? If that is what they really are than shouldn't they be able to openly embrace that? What is so bad about someone openly stating his controversial opinion in a public way? Is it because it challenges your subjective morality and offends you? Have you ever stopped to consider that we might be offended by the way you treat your subjective morality as if it is some kind of truth that defines the way all of us should live?

For the record, just to prevent the civil rights act as being used as ammo against my point, I consider myself a liberal and not a democrat. If people want to be bigotted jerks they should have that right, and people should openly discriminate against people. I don't think that kind of honesty would be a bad thing. If someone believes I am unfit for a job because I am white than I don't see why he shouldn't not hire me. If he finds I am unworthy or eating his chicken because I have a beard than I don't see why he should have to sell me his chicken. As long as nobody is harmed in the process than I can't see how you can justify it as being bad since morality is subjective.

Edit: For clarification, in that last sentence "nobody" should read "No non-consenting parties." If someone wants harm done to himself it should be his right to have harm done to him. If somebody wants to have his or her own flesh mutilated I don't think the government should be able to say they can't have it done. We currently call it piercings.

What's the word that is censored in the opening sentence of your tirade? The rest of your post kind of hinges on that, so we really have no idea what you're talking about.

Your basing this on some kind of idea that conservatives embrace a$$holes and liberals don't. What up with that?

You read that completely wrong. I'm stating that conservatives are trying to prevent the embrace there of. If somebody is really an a$$hole than why should it bother anyone when said person acts like one? As long as they're not causing harm to a non-consenting party than why should anyone care what that person is doing?

What are you even talking about? Conservatives don't want people to admit to being an a$$hole? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What does a person's political ideology have to do with them embracing an a$$hole?

but how is not hiring someone based on their race not harming them?

I think what The Unfan is saying is that conservatives don't want other people to embrace you, if you're an a.sshole. Right?
Anyway, my thought on this is that most conservatives like to see themselves as authoritarian, or in a powerful role in somehow, and generally I don't think they like people to think outside of their little close-minded box. Just my thoughts.

I'm saying that if I'm an a.sshole why shouldn't I act like one? Why do conservatives typically feel it is their role to govern human thought and emotion? If I honestly feel that [insert something here] is [insert something else here] why shouldn't I be able to express it in public without having a horde of closed minded morality pushers trying to legislate it away? If someone wants to say something on the radio, why should they have to censor it? If you're offended walk away or turn the channel and let the people who have something to say say it. If you then feel you have something to say back than say it, but for Nonexistent Deity's sake don't take away their freedom to do so. After all, a freedom I don't have is a freedom you don't have.

It doesn't create a condition in which they are fiscally or physically worse off than they were before applying therefore you didn't cause any harm. You just chose not to help, which should be your right. We shouldn't be obligated to nanny everyone.

While in the short term this might be true, if you have
widespread prejudice (like we still do) on the large scale
whatever minorities are being discriminated against are
suffering greatly fiscally and physically because they
have a harder time finding work and stay poor...
Basically, I, and many other reasonable folks,
believe that the right to be hired based on skill and
experience rather than other arbitrary traits is
more important than the right to hire people based
on whatever quality you feel like.

I agree with this point, in the case of government or state owned facilities, or in franchises where the owner of the franchise wants that policy.

However, a private business on privately owned land is completely different. We're talking about the government telling someone what they can do with their private property. If I can say blacks aren't welcome in my home or my car, than why should the government force me to have them welcomed on/in/to my other property?

because otherwise we've got widespread social conflicts
that's why these laws were passed in the first place

The last i knew, militant political correctness is more-or-less a product of ultra-liberalism than conservatism Well it is your first amendment right to do so, as for the radio, that kinda' falls under the FCC's jurisdiction.

Yeah, that's discrimination. If you can't wrap your head around why that's wrong, then I don't know. People do it everyday, and in many ways its justified. I mean if you're a minority and you go to a job interview with an unproffessional appearance and attitude, and you don't get hired, you could speculate all day as to whether or not there were racial implications, but people "pre-judge" regardless, but making decisions strictly on the basis of superficial appearances is ignorance plain and simple. Not quite what I would call a liberal trait.

Democrats aren't liberal, they just claim it to have a market which opposes that of the republicans. However, both parties are pretty much conservative.

Why does the FCC even exist in the first place? They serve no practical function and actually limit freedoms which have no possible way of being percieved as harmful.


But it is only subjectively wrong, and not objectively wrong. We are individuals and as individuals it should be up to us to determine what we like and dislike and for what reasons. It is rather dangerous to say the government's role is to attack such a basic freedom.

Neither am I.

So? Conflict isn't always a bad thing. It is a means to progression. If people are going to naturally stop being racist than they'll naturally stop being racist, if not than they shouldn't be forced to be accepting of anything. As long as people aren't actually hurting non-consenting parties than it shouldn't matter. Violence and theft should be illegal, but acting upon your own beliefs shouldn't. If I believe having attribute A makes you socially undesirable why should I have to associate with you?

I said nothing about democrats, and your right, democrates maintain a more liberal facade and tend to represent "liberal issues" for the sake of their electoral weight, but I am talking about liberalism being the mother of political correctness. the thing is, if we want freedom for ourselves individually, it doesn't work if we have no regard for the freedom of other people collectively, and America takes this concept to an extreme. It's a good thing, It just happens have some ridiculous by-products. Like I said, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever you want to, but people will react in kind. Example, when Don Imus made that "racial slur" and got fired from whatever company. That company was just protecting their image by canning him. He was within his legal rights. the point is, say whatever you want about "so-and-so" being a "such-and-such", but be prepared for reaction.

These are all valid points (for the most part), but they could be directed at ANYONE, not just conservatives, so I'm not quite sure why you're addressing it to them in particular.

Umm....I'm not sure how much you know about politics .... but this is incorrect.

.
This sounds like something Joseph Stalin might say..

This is short-sighted. If any group is suppressive of honesty and free speech its the liberals.

The PC armies are more overbearing than conservatives.

What are you refering to specificlly?

Yikes. The democrats are conservative? You must be so far left that no country seems liberal. Exactly what aren't they Liberal on, going on the assumption that there are ideas that are in fact liberal. (which there aren't)

If the FCC limits freedom, then don't listen to traditional radio. But what can't you do because of the FCC?

A small footnote, as I'm not going to get into the debate fully, but just to point out that this is a result of the confused use of terms stemming from popular media throwing around "liberal" and "conservative" as if they have meaning to specific (but generally unstated) groups. To say that an "ultra-liberal" would promote militant political correctness is incorrect if we follow true definitions of the terms. It would be more correct (though still highly inaccurate) to reference according to position on the left-right spectrum, in which case those that promote political correctness tend to be confused fence sitters in the centre.

Political correctness and forced diversity. Neither of which can be considered liberal by non-mainstream standards. Faux-liberal and pseudo-liberal would be good descriptions, maybe even quasi-liberal.

Yes, I am that far to the political left.

It isn't what I can't do personally, it is that my tax payer dollars are being used to hush people who did nothing criminal. It shouldn't ever be the government's role to prevent free expression. If a radio station doesn't want "foul content" than the station won't have it. If you're offended than turn the channel to something you want to hear. No government interaction is necesary, and our tax money being used to support the FCC is both economically poor and restrictive of "traditional radio" liberties. It wrongs the people in two ways. Not to mention the FCC were put in place, we didn't even vote them in. It should be up to us what we hear, not the government. Let the people have their say and quit wasting our money.



I'd be inclined to agree with Stalin if he ever did say that. Protesting is a form of conflict yet it doesn't actually harm anyone, debate/argument is a form of conflict (depending on context) but it doesn't harm anyone. If you can make a convincing enough point someone might change their stance, maybe not.

I get offended whenever someone mentions abortion and stem cell research being bad things. Do I believe those people should be harmed or killed? Not at all. Do I believe confronting them with the positive points of both might be a good thing? Most certainly, and I'll address it. I'll engage in a discussion, which might evolve into debate where in which arguments are made, but it is all in non-violent protest against their stance. See? Non-violent conflict that may sway someone's stance with no government interaction what so ever. If we are to live in a free country it is requisite that we can freely express our opinions without the government shooting us down on it.

You're creating terms and its nothing new. Christians who kill people "aren't real christians" and Republicans who tax and spend are "real conservatives" but they are.

PCness is a trademark of the ultra-idiot left. Learn your political spectrum, and what the sides mean. If you're going to come in here and try and dodge a bunch of realities by saying "this isn't something leftists do" then why even argue. Just tell us your statements are empirically true and that we aren't allowed to argue with them but you can't change widely accepted terms.

What makes you left exactly? You're coming off like some half-wit libertarian who things all the answers are simple deregulation. But you're not very left if you're looking for less government interaction, and you arne't very left if you're supporting a supply/demand model as heavily as you are...unless of course thats not a "true rightist" statement either.

The French Revolution is the basis for what left and right means. Left = more progressive and the right = more stasis policies.

If you're redrawing the lines for what is a liberal, then why don't you tell us what a conservative is because we all seem to have the same, wrong idea.

How can society progress when the government simply forces a subjective notion of good and bad? You can't really end racism if the government forces diversity. That doesn't solve any problems, it just kind of sweeps them under the rug. You can't really fix class intolerance (I'm not sure if that really is an issue anyway) by isolating them from each other. You can't fix community values by not allowing that community to value anything outside of what you yourself value. That isn't progression at all.

Government expansion isn't progression because it creates a degression of the liberties of the people where in which you stifle social development. Government regression is progressive because it creates a free thinking community where social development thrives and positive thinking is empowered.

I don't see it being a nation wide GG Allin concert as a strictly bad thing. Subjectively speaking it could offend you, but it isn't like you have the right to never be offended. You could either go somewhere where the activity that offends you isn't happening or you could try to non-violently sway them.

Two of the only things I think we should have laws against.

kinda sounds like anarchy to me. we do need laws and regulations.

Never claimed that wasn't the case. Nice try though, champ. However, the government should stay out of our private lives and not make personal choices for us. They shouldn't legislate our biasses, they shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do with our own bodies, and they shouldn't even touch religion or religious causes.

As far as laws are concerned the only laws that should even exist are ones that protect our liberties and right to maintain those liberties. That essentially means nobody should have the right to harm or kill a non-consenting party physically or fiscally. Anything and everything else should be fair game (for the citizens).

I already tackled this example. That person who was denied a job isn't physically or financially worse off than they were before applying for the job, except for the money they willingly spent or was taken from other means. You didn't harm them, you just chose not to help them.

...or it wouldn't. Though all of either of us have is speculation.

... we have historical basis? as i pointed out before, laws don't get made for no reason.

You seem to have some sort of unsaid personal issue here. How EXACTLY were you censored? (Just to give the rest of us a small glimpse as to where the hell all of this is coming from)

Taking offence to soemthing is different to outright anarchy. Its more of a Hobbsian agreement. We agree to follow the laws in order for protection.

But you do have the right to not be offended. It was always just a general understanding of what was legit and what was whining, but the left is pushing its boundries and now we have law suits because prisoners are being sternly spoken to.

I agree with Oojay. Something happened. Spit it out and cut to the chase because you're unifying the most unlikely people in this thread.

*Who wants to start a pool? I call "Rot-gut ambient band not allowed to play a venue because of "poetic" explative.

I can't think of a rational reason to outlaw marijuana and not alcohol. While both are mind altering drugs alcohol is actually far more dangerous while marijuana has medical benefits such as ease of pain, increase in appetite, and the surpressing of vomit. Marijuana realistically isn't a bad way to treat bulemia.

The first ammendment was made to protect unpopular speech, not popular speech. You have the right to choose if something offends you or not, but not the right to take away someone else's rights based on how offended something makes you. You can react to it, sure. I agree that you should be able to down talk any stance you want, and ridicule those who disagree with you. Make your point and if its convincing enough someone might change their stance or retract their statement. No government interaction necesary. We're all offended by some things and that is a good thing. Taking away individuality based on what offends you personally just isn't good (subjectively speaking of course) for society as a whole.


In recent history I've not been censored.

There's still a reason it's illegal, but it's a bad reason and not based on historical precedent or clinical studies, more social prejudices and tobacco lobyists. For something like anti-discrimination laws, there is a valid historical precedent.

Expand? I'm just curious as to if your understanding differs from mine or if I missed something in history class.

Hmmm how about the whole thing with african-americans being enslaved by white folk....

Not taking sides here, but anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with slavery.

obviously they do, though not directly. the immediate causes were segregation, jim crow laws, and pretty much every form of social and economic subjugation you can think of, but these were all caused by the dissolution of slavery

I mean that without them there still wouldn't be slavery. The laws that prohibit slavery and the taking away of a groups rights aren't anti-discrimination laws.

Well, yes to be a pedant they are. The issue lies in how far anti-discrimination laws are taken before they become so absorbed in not offending one particular group that they start to act as an unjustified censure to others, the mystical and much feared "positive" discrimination.

And funny you should mention that. Know who else doesn't agree with that? Libratarians, Aranchists, or Conservatives. Read something about William F Buckley and get back to me. Unless of course he's only a quasi-conservative or whatever the hell it is you use to save face.


And not so you could hop on the public airwaves and be shocking because you're attention starved. it was politiclly motivated to give equality to people who were under the persecution of government rule. Not to throw Bologna at a strippers ass.


Maybe we ought to ban you and make the damn thread more relevent.

I will not follow a law i do not want to follow.
simple enough.
Government should not be present, people should learn how to survive on their own. Yeah obviously there will be murder.. oh well **** happens, if you aren't protecting yourself, thats your fault.

I was born into a government w/o a choice, and I don't like it, I shouldn't have to cow tow to the rules that completely opposite people put in place.


but remember you always have to fight for your right to party