If only you understood how to use computers well enough to read this post.

It struck me earlier today that I absolutely can not stand social conservatives.

Jingoistic, flag waving, gay bashing, "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS GONE TOO FAR, YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY NIGGER ANYMORE!", superstitious, judgmental, hypocritical pricks.

Old men in walkers who stand outside of planned parenthood centers to protest women getting abortions.

People who wouldn't otherwise vote, coming out to vote because they are only one gay marriage bill away from leaving their wives and children and running out into the streets to guzzle cum.

If the only reason you came out to vote is because Bob and Tom getting married down the street is the greatest threat to the "sanctity" of your marriage, odds are, you are an idiot. Sorry, but someone had to let you know. Condolences.

On which side were these pillars of moral virtue during the civil rights movements of the past? Dixiecrats, anyone?

Remember the "Solid South"? It was solid to the Democratic party, because they used to be pro-slavery, the civil war happened, and then Johnson "lost the south for a generation" by SUPPORTING CIVIL RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES!

And so now, naturally, they vote Republican.

If you oppose ground-breaking stem cell research, something that has the potential to cure otherwise previously incurable diseases, and wish for the United States to fall behind internationally because you are worried that some goo in a pitri dish might grow up one day and be a Republican, you are a social conservative. Please stop voting.

If your cock is so tiny you feel the need to play dress up and ride around in your pickup trucks with guns in order to stop brown people from coming into the country who are TAKIN R JOBS, you might be a minuteman, and you are a social conservative. Stop, just stop.

If you come out to vote only so that candidates for the local schoolboard who believe that talking snakes and magic is just as plausible as the proven and tested theory of evolution can be elected and cause your town international shame, you might be a member of the "faith-based community", and you are probably a social conservative. EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY HURRR! Let's try to have reality-based policies when it comes to tax-payer money, okay guys? Thanks.

If you thought it was your place to "save" Terri Schiavo...yeah, please stop.

If you support "the War on (some) Drugs", support the raiding of medical marijuana dispensaries and the arresting of sick people by the DEA, if you support people being handcuffed to their wheelchairs as has happened in the past, if you are ignorant of the 1920s and the rise of Al Capone and the lessons of alcohol prohibition, if you are unconcerned with higher and higher taxes going to pay for the highest prison population in the world instead of our "godless" public education system, if you support making young people felons and sending them to the "University of Crime" where they are forced to join gangs and are far more likely to be violent after they leave than before they went in, if you are against job training programs and rehabilitation funding and decriminalization...

...you are likely far more concerned about achieving the emotional satisfaction that people get when they sit around their kitchen tables and talk about "junkies", "muslims", "the mexicans", or "the blacks", far more concerned about having your pathetic anger satisfied, and at the heart of it, far more concerned about causing HURT to those you have chosen in your mind to dislike, REGARDLESS of whether or not those policies result in an increase in crime across the board.

To you, the issue is not decreasing drug addiction, or saving innocent people from being caught in the middle of violent black market disputes (the inevitable result of government created black markets), or lowering crime rates or lifting people out of poverty.

No. To you, the issue is whether or not society is properly causing hurt to groups of people that you hate, and if such hurt can only be achieved by society as a whole giving up their civil liberties, or increasing rates of drug addiction, wasting BILLIONS of tax dollars every year (absolutely shameful)...to you it is more important that people you hate be properly hurt than it is that society as a whole benefits, and if some of the side consequences of the policies that you advocate happen to be the harming of innocent bystanders, then so be it.

That is very sick, and you are probably a social conservative.

This is why you probably oppose medical marijuana, because even if (and they do) truly sick people with terminal diseases benefit immensely from the healing properties of marijuana, you would rather they not have that available if it means you can have the emotional satisfaction of causing pain to groups of people that you hate, groups of people that make you feel better about yourself just by the very fact that they exist and you look down on them. Why else would you turn out in droves to vote against medical marijuana bills? "Damn stoners/hippies/pejorative!" indeed.

This is also why you support the torture of "America's enemies!"

How is it the same?

Think about it.

Even though innocent people could be (and surely have been) tortured and mentally broken for the rest of their lives, you would rather use a method of interrogation that countless intelligence agencies have decried as either useless or potentially dangerous due to the unreliable nature of the intelligence gathered. But things like facts don't bother you when it comes to religion in schools, evolution, the war on drugs, science, race, or anything else, so why should it bother you now?

The truth is, you support torture because your primary concern is your own twisted emotional satisfaction that you get from being "tough on crime", "tough on America's enemies". It isn't an issue of constitutionality for you, you aren't worried about what happens if an innocent person is tortured or whether or not torture is morally justifiable (this is also why you support the death penalty, by the way!), no. The truth is, you support torture because having the emotional crutch of hating THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM is more important to you than actually serving the nation's interests by having an internationally honorable policy on torture, and harming the "guilty" is certainly far more important to you than protecting the innocent.

That right there is a wee pinch of sadism, and you "my friends" are probably social conservatives.


Please, I beg of you, stop advocating policy based on quickly arrived upon preconceived prejudices, stop deciding what is proper policy based on how threatened and upset you feel about people that behave in ways that bother you (oh, you poor thing!) and start looking at statistical evidence and reason to decide your opinions, instead of your opinions deciding which statistical evidence you will lift in order to back up opinions in which your pathetically empty identity has investments.

If this is beyond you, I respectfully request that you stop voting and stop having children.

You are destroying our country so that you can push your narrow, emotional opinions on to the rest of the nation, and worst of all, you create a giant tax burden in your wake.

That is to say, you take the wealth generated by productive members of society, skim the top of it, and then use it in ways that go from ineffective at best (abstinence only education) to dreadfully harmful (the war on drugs).



At least homeless street urchins don't vote.


Please, if you love this country as much as you say you do, listen to your cognitive dissonance as often as you can, and please, leave the worst group in American society, the social conservatives.

5/4/2008 2:37:58 AM

Gonna need a cliff notes version.

5/4/2008 3:38:06 AM

i have a better idea

don't waste your time reading the summary, either

5/4/2008 5:18:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm not an academic, actually."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=4

Quote :

"He is, just like most people in America. Like you never have said nigger, chink, whop, or spic behind closed doors. Like you've never gone on an ill-informed, ignorant tirade about immigrants (ARGH THOSE MUD PEOPLE)."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=4

Quote :

"China's not the best, obviously. It's just that America is becoming so hilariously bad -- mostly due to people who share your ideology."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518894&page=3

Quote :

"Hey dude be glad my people come over here. We take the jobs that Americans don't want are unqualified to do. Take a look at your Universities and their graduate programs. Look how many people from my country get funding from your government, just to take their expertise back home afterwards. It makes me laugh with joy when I imagine all of the rage and bitterness you cheap peckerwoods feel when you realize we benefit from your tax dollars directly."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=4

Quote :

"Hahaha why would they exactly. Your country is on its way out of the number 1 spot, buddy. Get used to it."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=5

Quote :

"I'm not the one crying. You're the one terrified that the foreigners are taking over your country. Guess what, peckerwood? We are. Better learn to deal with it. America has been a nation of immigrants and it continues to be. Meanwhile white people, who have always controlled this country and continue to control this country, cry their eyes out over it."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=3

Quote :

"I'm training for 'white women raping.' It's something we've been training for more and more as we continue to flood your country."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=5

There's a shitfest going on in what passes for your brain.

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 7:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2008 7:04:11 AM

summary:

them backward ass old people that live in the South. Alls they do is hate Gays and mexicans. Its the only thing they care about They are so ignorant i bet they didnt even go to college. Their vote shouldnt count and they shouldnt have kids either.


Dude, I dont support social Conservatives either. I dont support the legislating of morality, etc. but i think you classifying all social conservatives as one dimensional people only capable of hate and anger is ridiculous. I personally know several people I would classify as Social Conservatives who have gone out of their way to start Soup kitchens in my home town and feed a hundred homeless a week. No questions ask.

I guess the thing that perturbs me is that you talking about how much you hate social conservatives and how stupid they are isnt much different from social conservatives hating gays and muslims

just something to think about.

5/4/2008 10:28:35 AM

Quote :

"I absolutely can not stand social conservatives."

5/4/2008 10:31:03 AM

I tend to avoid ignorant friends in the first place, so I don't much have this problem.

5/4/2008 11:07:03 AM

Quote :

"I dont support the legislating of morality, etc. but i think you classifying all social conservatives as one dimensional people only capable of hate and anger is ridiculous."

By ridiculous you mean true, yes?

Oh wow they work in soup kitchens, how nice of them. Yet, they come out in droves to continuously use their votes to keep the people they hate as second-class citizens. Hooray.

"Here's some soup sonny... just don't expect equal rights."

5/4/2008 12:16:23 PM

This has the "all" problem.

Anytime the word is used in conjunction with a description of any group of people's behaviors, actions, or beliefs; it's invariably wrong.

5/4/2008 12:21:48 PM

I just can't believe the Lius has completed a degree at NCSU.

No way.

I don't think even a CE major could go 4 years and still have this must confidence in his own genius. Math major?

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ``]

5/4/2008 12:53:38 PM

I have to say I fully agree with LiusClues of all the political offshoots I fucking have "social conservatives" the most. I am pretty "economically conservative" but would never consider myself a republican as would rather be classified a democrat then to be grouped with those bible thumping do-gooders who think its the gov'ts job to act as the moral police and my surrogate dad.

Quote :

"OU CAN'T EVEN SAY NIGGER ANYMORE"

I don't agree with this. Usually its the liberals/progressives that are about the "political" correctness and not offending other "sensitive" ethnic groups. If anything social conservatives especially southerners are more likely to be racist and have a fairly often use of the N-word to describe their thoughts of certain people that they believe to be degrading their perfect moral USA #1.

Social Conservatives just get upset when a boobie pops out for 0.4 seconds. This freaks them out b.c their innocent corruptable 8 yr old may have just noticed the "nipple," scarring them from life, and leading them down the road to be a child pedofile or a rapist.

5/4/2008 1:06:20 PM

is liusclues still abe?

5/4/2008 2:07:06 PM

Quote :

"is liusclues still abe?"

Yeah but I go by Haojun now.

5/4/2008 2:14:56 PM

While I agree in large part with the sentiment of the original post, LiusClues, you consistently put things in such a way as to alienate basically everyone else in the thread. These are the types of forum posts I made when I was 15. Once again, I'm not saying that I don't disagree that almost everything there is to social conservatism in its current form is harmful to our society. What I am saying is that threads like this accomplish absolutely nothing. You accuse people of being embittered and full of rage, but clearly you yourself suffer from these exact same problems. I am asking you, seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish? If it's anything beyond trolling, it's a complete failure.

5/4/2008 2:41:54 PM

This place is called the soap box, is it not? I stand on my own. You're welcome to stand on your own as well.

5/4/2008 2:49:04 PM

Quote :

"If only you understood how to use computers well enough to read this post."

See after I read this I realized you must be talking to another type of "social conservative" since I understood the first sentence.

5/4/2008 2:55:54 PM

Nope it's you. This thread is for you.

Read it. Watch, and learn.

5/4/2008 2:56:33 PM

Your description of social conservatives probably accurately describes perhaps 10-15% of them. There are many who are socially conservative, but also libertarian.






PS- With a few changes in the politics, all of your bitching could describe those on the left too.

5/4/2008 3:24:30 PM

Quote :

"but also libertarian. "

Do you know what a social conservative is????

Libertarians by no means fall into this category by strictly definition. Although i am sure there are some self-proclaimed libertarians who hold social conservative values. Ron Paul is probably a prime example. still while he holds "conservative social values" he does not beleive its the gov't job to project these values onto the people.

Libertarians are for the most part solely economic conservatives.

5/4/2008 4:46:21 PM

^

What you said is what I meant.

People who hold those values, but do not project them on others.

5/4/2008 7:21:40 PM

After reading hooksaws quotes of LostClues I can see why social conservatives act the way they do towards people like him.

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2008 8:48:03 PM

wow a fucking retarded thread chok full of shitty opinions

so much stupid shoved into such a small space.

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 9:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2008 9:04:08 PM

^ Much like your posting.

5/4/2008 11:41:00 PM

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

5/4/2008 11:49:06 PM

legislation, by definition, is morality. good work, fool

5/5/2008 12:12:09 AM

while i really don't like social conservatives either, i think your assessment of them is oversimplified and heavy handed

5/5/2008 12:23:04 AM

^^The more you post, the more rational people tune you out.

5/5/2008 12:28:33 AM

i tuned him out like at least 5 months ago

5/5/2008 12:33:55 AM

i think that goes for you, not me. any rational person will agree that legislation is morality. morality has rules. legislation is a rule. ergo, the collective body of legislation is a morality.

5/5/2008 12:34:08 AM

baseball has rules, so does football and every other sport. Does that make the collection of sport morality?

5/5/2008 12:35:31 AM

In a very general sense, it is morality. But it is pedantic to dismiss the discussion based on that, as 'burro is trying to do.

5/5/2008 12:38:27 AM

Quote :

"any rational person will agree that legislation is morality. morality has rules. legislation is a rule. ergo, the collective body of legislation is a morality."

That doesn't follow at all. By that definition, there would be no such thing as an unjust law, as the law defines morality. Nor would any defiance of unjust laws ever be moral. Yet there is a long history of natural rights philosophers that would contend that disobedience of unjust laws is not only moral, but one's moral duty.

Frankly, it's silly to conflate "law" with "morality." We might base the concept of laws upon some semblance of morality, but the two are not synonymous.

5/5/2008 12:45:16 AM

^very good post in my opinion

5/5/2008 12:51:34 AM

smackr, the "rules" in baseball do not define what is societally right or wrong. they define the bounds of play in the sport. ergo, they do not equate to a morality. sorry, mang.

^^^ I don't think it is pedantic to dismiss the discussion. In almost every sense where someone says "don't legislate morality" what they are really saying is "don't legislate a morality different from mine."

And yes, there can be an "unjust law." Just because something is a morality does not mean it is not cognitively dissonant.

5/5/2008 12:52:16 AM

Quote :

"And yes, there can be an "unjust law." Just because something is a morality does not mean it is not cognitively dissonant."

It simply doesn't logically follow. If there can be such a thing as an unjust law, it implies there is a source of morality outside of the law. Which means that the moral duty to follow the laws comes only from the obligation such that those laws themselves are moral.

Again - laws may be put in place to enforce moral principles. But if we admit the fact that laws themselves can be unjust or immoral, then clearly laws themselves cannot be the source of morality.

5/5/2008 12:58:59 AM

Quote :

"laws may be put in place to enforce the moral principles of the voting majority, whether they be christians, satanist, or atheist. "

5/5/2008 1:01:56 AM

Quote :

"smackr, the "rules" in baseball do not define what is societally right or wrong. they define the bounds of play in the sport. ergo, they do not equate to a morality. sorry, mang."

the rules of baseball and all other sport do in fact define what is societally right and wrong in said sport.

5/5/2008 1:27:26 AM

Quote :

""laws may be put in place to enforce the moral principles of the voting majority,"

This is bullshit. The "voting" majority in Nazi Germany approved the moral standards that jews are evil and should be segregated. This does not mean it was right.

or......

the "voting" majority of many americans in the early 1800's thought slavery was cool......
Does this mean they are right?
A majority vote or opinion on an issue does not always make an issue right/moral. Tyranny of the masses is no different then tyranny from one dictator.

5/5/2008 10:00:23 AM

godwin's law

5/5/2008 10:04:26 AM

Welcome to America.

5/5/2008 10:18:44 AM

^^^There wasn't majority support for hitler. There was a plurality, but not a majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election%2C_1933

5/5/2008 10:52:05 AM

Quote :

"I tend to avoid ignorant friends in the first place, so I don't much have this problem."

You mean that moron discriminates and is intolerant of other people's beliefs? Oh I'm just shocked, shocked I tell ya.

When some of you grow up, you'll find out that there's a bigger world out there than the one you fit into your daytight compartment.

As for the rant about us dumb racist southerners and civil rights, I'd like to remind the jackass who wrote his original diatribe that without Republican support civil rights legislation would never have passed. So your whole premise is nothing more than oversimplified spoonfed propaganda.

5/5/2008 10:52:06 AM

Quote :

"Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states. The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act#Passage_in_the_House_of_Representatives

It wasn't because of the Republican party. It was because of the northerners.

5/5/2008 11:03:53 AM

Quote :

"You mean that moron discriminates and is intolerant of other people's beliefs? Oh I'm just shocked, shocked I tell ya. "

What? I'm not friends with nor do I even know mrfrog.

^ He's been told that probably hundreds of times, but it hasn't stuck yet. He obviously prefers his delusions instead.

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

5/5/2008 11:13:19 AM

Quote :

"People who wouldn't otherwise vote, coming out to vote because they are only one gay marriage bill away from leaving their wives and children and running out into the streets to guzzle cum."

wat

5/5/2008 1:42:02 PM

^^^^ The first post was really about dumb southern conservatives. I was saying that I don't hear much of their crap myself.

I know people who probably sound like the people LiusClues if I talked politics with them. But then again, I don't really talk politics with them.

IMHO people who spread racist propaganda really don't care about politics that much. Because people who care tend to hit within some general range of opinions that sound, oh I don't know... rational? And as I tend to only talk to people about politics who to some degree care about politics, I don't have many friends complaining about how unfair it is that they can't say nigger anymore.

I just don't deal with that much, and... I don't really want to.

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2008 1:43:03 PM

And without Republican support the bills die. So why do supposed southern racists hold some affinity for a party who widely supported civil rights legislation?

5/5/2008 2:39:04 PM

The Republican Party of 1964 is no where near the Republican Party of 1968 and later. It's called the Souther Strategy. I suggest you look into it. "Law and Order" was a code for "Segregation."

5/5/2008 2:44:00 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

This does a nice job of refuting the supposed southern stategy, in the New York Times no less. It's really not your fault, nutlacker, I'm sure you've been spoonfed a lot of things over the years. It's ok to think outside your box...

5/5/2008 3:08:29 PM

so one book is meant to refute all the work on the subject.

You might want to refrain from the unwarranted attacks on people.

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." - Kevin Phillips, Chief strategist for Richard Nixon

Boyd, James (May 17, 1970) "Nixon's Southern strategy: 'It's All in the Charts'". New York Times. p. 215

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2008 3:17:42 PM