Are conservatives really for family values?

[Verv]

I find this to be an extremely silly thread. It consists of:

"Yeah, conservatives smoke and drink, too, so they don't support family values... And they said a derogatory word for prostitute..."

"yeah, and the big businesses hurt families, how could that be family values?"

"Oh, and by the way, family values are shady and wrong."

I am not sure what is going on or where to begin being that this all begins and ends with simple, open-ended statements that have no argument behind them -- I cannot even begin to confront the conclusions that you are making because there are no valid premises.

If we applied the laws of logic to these arguments it would hold water the same way as a civ.

I would be interested in hearign some of you actually make some arguments. I have seen nothing that would pass for an argument (or at least I hope that you are not trying to argue or make a point here).

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I find this to be an extremely silly thread. It consists of:

"Yeah, conservatives smoke and drink, too, so they don't support family values... And they said a derogatory word for prostitute..."

"yeah, and the big businesses hurt families, how could that be family values?"

"Oh, and by the way, family values are shady and wrong."

I am not sure what is going on or where to begin being that this all begins and ends with simple, open-ended statements that have no argument behind them -- I cannot even begin to confront the conclusions that you are making because there are no valid premises.

If we applied the laws of logic to these arguments it would hold water the same way as a civ.

I would be interested in hearign some of you actually make some arguments. I have seen nothing that would pass for an argument (or at least I hope that you are not trying to argue or make a point here).

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmverville again.

I will add further that we've failed to define 'conservatives'. Or is this a blanket statement which includes all who claim the title?

 

[enlightenment]

This thread is funny.

The group who has enshrined the "right" of a mother to kill her own children in the womb,

They aren't children until the third trimester. Certainly, a group of cells in the first week is not a child.

the same group that has pushed to make divorce more acceptable and easier to get

It used to be that women were not allowed to get a divorce, just the man. And if the divorce occured, it was seen as being the woman's fault. She wasn't a good wife. The family would then be ridiculed and socially outcast, especially the woman. It was all sexist. So, essentially, you're calling the progress made in this area bad, and sexist good. Because that's the way it was before--sexist.

the same group that wants drugs legalized

No, that would be the libertarians. Ever noticed how small their party is?

is going to say that Conservatives are wrong for buying into their message???

Yes.

I happen to agree that too many conservatives look too lightly on drug abuse and divorce, and all the other anti-family values of the left.

The left is not anti-family. Let me tell you something. I recently overheard a conversation that a woman was having with another woman about her divorce. Well, here in WA state, one of the most liberal states, divorce would be considered "lax" to you. She described the nightmarish situation she was in, the pain and agony she was going through. Do you really want to put more legal haggling burdains on this woman? When people are going through a divorce, the last thing they need is more legal loopholes to jump through. They already have enough pain. You don't need to punish people for doing something that you don't like! I just don't see how putting more legal obstacles in the way is pro-family. It would increase the stress and burdains on families who are going through divorce, not help.

"Well, maybe if divorces were harder to get, less people would be getting them."

If that is your position, that is just so coldhearted and perverted and anti-family. I just can't imagine. Yes, let's just try to keep women tied to men they hate. Let's take some empowering legal rights away from these women, because somehow the legally powerless woman promotes your family values.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

"Liberals are all over making drug use legal - are responsible for making divorce easier to obtain and continuously endorse programs and policies which have proven destructive to the family."

Making drug use legal and supporting drug abuse are two separate things. The war on drugs is ridiculously costly, ineffective, and in reality creates crime and violence. I do believe in personal responsibility. If you take drugs and it doesn't screw your life up, great. If you do drugs and screw your life up, your life is screwed up. Educate people about drugs, punish trafficing, and leave it be.

What policies are destructive to "the family?" Refusing to raise the minimum wage, leaving low wage single mothers in a worse position than ever? Refusing to allow the education on and distribution of birth control and true education about sex to keep young people from getting pregnant and getting diseases? Or is it more destructive to let gay people get married. I hate divorce. But thats a personal morals issue. Get the american majority of Christians to value marriage (which we are all supposed to do) and people will stay married. Not the government's job to make sure people get and stay married.

Lastly, it makes christians look bad when we go around calling people heathens. Thats a great wat to spread Christ's love and the good news. Keep it up!

 

[enlightenment]

Liberals are all over making drug use legal

I don't. Drugs hurt more than just the drug user; that's my reason.

 

[enlightenment]

"Liberals are all over making drug use legal - are responsible for making divorce easier to obtain and continuously endorse programs and policies which have proven destructive to the family."


Making drug use legal and supporting drug abuse are two separate things. The war on drugs is ridiculously costly, ineffective, and in reality creates crime and violence. I do believe in personal responsibility. If you take drugs and it doesn't screw your life up, great. If you do drugs and screw your life up, your life is screwed up. Educate people about drugs, punish trafficing, and leave it be.

See, there is a diverse range of ideas even within liberal school of thought.

What policies are destructive to "the family?" Refusing to raise the minimum wage, leaving low wage single mothers in a worse position than ever?

Refusing to allow the education on and distribution of birth control

and true education about sex to keep young people from getting pregnant and getting diseases?

Or is it more destructive to let gay people get married.

I hate divorce. But thats a personal morals issue.

You are right. It's a personal moral issue. Why do people think they can meddle in other people's personal lives by putting more legal hoops in front of them or making a divorce more difficult to get? I don't recal Jesus saying Christians were supposed to make personal life decisions for other people...

Get the american majority of Christians to value marriage (which we are all supposed to do) and people will stay married. Not the government's job to make sure people get and stay married.

You are wise for your age. This is the point I have been attempting to make. You stated it eloquently and plainly.

Lastly, it makes christians look bad when we go around calling people heathens. Thats a great wat to spread Christ's love and the good news. Keep it up!

I know...that was horrible.

 

[brewmama]

What policies are destructive to "the family?" Refusing to raise the minimum wage, leaving low wage single mothers in a worse position than ever?

Absolutely. Raising the minimum wage does nothing except cause unemployment, since less employees can be supported. This is the reason young workers have been squeezed out of the job market. As for low wage single mothers, welfare has done them massively more harm than good, since it usurped the role of the male provider, and made fathers both irrelevant and unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of a family. Try looking at the big picture for a change, and seeing how detrimental liberal economic policies have been for the poor. You really should be willing to own up to the horrific consequences of your favored policies.

Refusing to allow the education on and distribution of birth control and true education about sex to keep young people from getting pregnant and getting diseases? Or is it more destructive to let gay people get married. I hate divorce. But thats a personal morals issue. Get the american majority of Christians to value marriage (which we are all supposed to do) and people will stay married. Not the government's job to make sure people get and stay married.

Birth control and premarital sex are certainly anti-family. If sex was considered procreational and rightful only within marriage as it used to be, you wouldn't have the problems you are referring to. And the government certainly DOES have a role and a responsibility in maintaining policy that is good for society, and so far liberal and secular policies have been devastating, and Christian moral ideals have been beneficial. So your complaint is certainly not well-founded.

Lastly, it makes christians look bad when we go around calling people heathens. Thats a great wat to spread Christ's love and the good news. Keep it up!

I think he's proud of it.

 

[enlightenment]

Absolutely. Raising the minimum wage does nothing except cause unemployment, since less employees can be supported. This is the reason young workers have been squeezed out of the job market.

Maybe, but maybe not.

As for low wage single mothers, welfare has done them massively more harm than good, since it usurped the role of the male provider, and made fathers both irrelevant and unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of a family. Try looking at the big picture for a change, and seeing how detrimental liberal economic policies have been for the poor. You really should be willing to own up to the horrific consequences of your favored policies.

I think the harm here is not that these women are dependent on the government versus a man, but that they are dependent at all. Maybe it was your religious teaching that led these women to believe that they should be dependent on men or just dependent in general. And so now when people get divorces, we have men who don't want to have to support a woman who never took responsibility enough to get a college eduation so that she could get a decent, family-income job. It's too much to ask of a man, to keep supporting a woman he no longer loves.

What we need to realize is that we have taught these women that, because they are women, they can get free rides off of men. And when the men leave, then they look to the government. The answer is not to make men stay or the women be dependent on men for a stable financial life (which is an outdated and no longer useful idea, since the work field is open to both genders now), but to prepare women for a full and independent life like the men. It's not a good idea to try to impose your religious ideas on other people who do not share them. Why not let them see first how good you have it your way, if it is truely good, and then people will come. They will.

But we're still waiting for your divorce rates to go down...lower than ours...

Birth control and premarital sex are certainly anti-family.

I disagree. Birth control prevents women from having 12+ babies. How in the world is it that such backwards thinking is still subscribed to?

Premarital sex: oh the lies that get propogated about this. My next-door neighbors were an unmarried couple for over a year, and they finally got married a few months ago. They're doing just fine.

If sex was considered procreational and rightful only within marriage as it used to be, you wouldn't have the problems you are referring to.

If women were not told they should be dependent on men, or dependent at all--if we expected our daughters to prepare for raising a family and supporting themselves, we wouldn't be having these problems.

And the government certainly DOES have a role and a responsibility in maintaining policy that is good for society,

Yes, it certainly does.

and so far liberal and secular policies have been devastating

That's from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint, conservative policies are the most devastating. I.E. slavery, racism, sexism, and all kinds of non-progressive hatred.

and Christian moral ideals have been beneficial. So your complaint is certainly not well-founded.

Yes, Christian moral beliefs can indeed be beneficial. There is no argument with me on that one.

I think he's proud of it.

lol

 

[Scholar in training]

Maybe, but maybe not.

It's a basic fact of economics that if you raise the minimum wage too high, people won't be motivated to work. Afterall, if they can get a good deal of money from basic jobs, they will not attempt to move up in the system; this is but one of the reasons why increasing the minimum wage too much is dangerous. That is why it's important to put limits on wages; we just have to determine what that limit should be.

If women were not told they should be dependent on men, or dependent at all--if we expected our daughters to prepare for raising a family and supporting themselves, we wouldn't be having these problems.

I agree that women should be able to fare for themselves in case their husband dies, is handicapped, is negligent, etc. But that doesn't mean that the husband's role should be played down in turn; that only leads to a mentality among husbands that they don't have a duty to their wives. The days of chivalry are dead, remember.

That's from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint, conservative policies are the most devastating. I.E. slavery, racism, sexism, and all kinds of non-progressive hatred.

Pardon? Just because many forms of conservatism in the past have included those things, TODAY's conservatism doesn't. The last time I checked, conservatives aren't beating their slaves out in the fields - not in this country. It is completely inaccurate - not to mention dishonest - for you to say that conservatism always results in or promotes the issues you mentioned.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I would love to have just one person show me the data that supports the corelation between raising the minimum wage and an increase in unemployment. That is a specious argument that people are being spoon fed by the Government who of course are big business on the federal payroll.

 

[brewmama]

Maybe, but maybe not.

That is certainly equivacal. But it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is a fact. That is the outcome of increased minimum wages.

I think the harm here is not that these women are dependent on the government versus a man, but that they are dependent at all. Maybe it was your religious teaching that led these women to believe that they should be dependent on men or just dependent in general. And so now when people get divorces, we have men who don't want to have to support a woman who never took responsibility enough to get a college eduation so that she could get a decent, family-income job. It's too much to ask of a man, to keep supporting a woman he no longer loves.

That whole statement sounds pretty darn anti-family to me. If you don't want to have supporters of families, and caretakers of children, and you couch it in political terms like "dependent" in a derogatory sneer, then what family is it that you are for?

What we need to realize is that we have taught these women that, because they are women, they can get free rides off of men. And when the men leave, then they look to the government. The answer is not to make men stay or the women be dependent on men for a stable financial life (which is an outdated and no longer useful idea, since the work field is open to both genders now), but to prepare women for a full and independent life like the men. It's not a good idea to try to impose your religious ideas on other people who do not share them. Why not let them see first how good you have it your way, if it is truely good, and then people will come. They will.

But we're still waiting for your divorce rates to go down...lower than ours...

Again, it seems that you have issues beyond just the usual family values discussion. Hate to tell you, but biology makes women more "dependent" than men. And since I'm married, I guess my divorce rate is pretty low.

I disagree. Birth control prevents women from having 12+ babies. How in the world is it that such backwards thinking is still subscribed to?

Read Humanae vitae.

Premarital sex: oh the lies that get propogated about this. My next-door neighbors were an unmarried couple for over a year, and they finally got married a few months ago. They're doing just fine.

What "lie" are you referring to? Are you saying that the statistic showing that couples who live together prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced? Sex has historically been connected to marriage, and was frowned upon outside of marriage, in most cultures around the world.

If women were not told they should be dependent on men, or dependent at all--if we expected our daughters to prepare for raising a family and supporting themselves, we wouldn't be having these problems.

So...you don't believe in marriage? What are you saying here? Facts are facts, and the poorest people by far are single mothers, who have been abandoned by the men who impregnated them, and the society that doesn't hold those men responsible.

That's from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint, conservative policies are the most devastating. I.E. slavery, racism, sexism, and all kinds of non-progressive hatred.

How can you tie conservatism to a single one of those policies?? What bigoted rot. As Nancy Griffith said, the only hate I see around here is coming from your side.

 

[Doctrine1st]

That is certainly equivacal. But it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is a fact. That is the outcome of increased minimum wages

Please show me.

 

[Scholar in training]

Please show me.

Increased Wage Bad Idea (biased, but some good points later on in the article)
Asian Labour News (doesn't totally apply to the USA because of child labor laws, but illustrates the point that more money per worker = more workers laid off)
Rev. Britt on Minimum-Wage Education (Law of Demand, increased wage rate = decreased willingness on the part of business firms to hire)

 

[TheBear]

What are family values anyway? How does one vote for "family values?" Sounds like frivolous nonsense.

I agree. It is frivolous nonsense. The term is as ambiguous as the 'War on Poverty'.

 

[brewmama]

Please show me.

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/econ.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch36.asp

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/supply.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050323.shtml

 

[Doctrine1st]

Increased Wage Bad Idea (biased, but some good points later on in the article)
Asian Labour News (doesn't totally apply to the USA because of child labor laws, but illustrates the point that more money per worker = more workers laid off)
Rev. Britt on Minimum-Wage Education (Law of Demand, increased wage rate = decreased willingness on the part of business firms to hire)

Yes, I understand the theory in which unless I missed something, which the articles layout.

What I want to see is the data that shows when ever the minimum wage has been increased, unemployment increased?

 

[Spawn]

Minimum wage - MAXIMUM folly

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040629.shtml

15 pages of ACTUAL DATA: http://www.epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf

 

[Doctrine1st]

I see alot of theories from a lot of websites provided, and I do appreciate the response to my request, but how about some actual DATA!

This one provided by brewmama is the closet thing I can find, but they are just citing studys.

I do not wish to get into a site citing contest, for I can easily find many that say there is no corelation, I just wanted to see the data that showed through HISTORY that there is an effect.

 

[enlightenment]

I think the harm here is not that these women are dependent on the government versus a man, but that they are dependent at all. Maybe it was your religious teaching that led these women to believe that they should be dependent on men or just dependent in general. And so now when people get divorces, we have men who don't want to have to support a woman who never took responsibility enough to get a college eduation so that she could get a decent, family-income job. It's too much to ask of a man, to keep supporting a woman he no longer loves.

That whole statement sounds pretty darn anti-family to me. If you don't want to have supporters of families, and caretakers of children, and you couch it in political terms like "dependent" in a derogatory sneer, then what family is it that you are for?

I don't know what is anti-family about it. Working and making money for the family seems pro-family to me. Supporters of families and caretakers of children? It goes back to what I was saying: we shouldn't try to confine the genders strictly to these two gender roles; such a thing is not practical for today.

If a man and a woman get a divorce, and there are children, and if the mother wants custody of some or all of the children, she had better be prepared to go to work and make a family-income to support herself and the kids. But to teach her that she needs to be dependent, and hope that a divorce will never happen, is the same thing as withholding sex education from a teen when they might have unprotected sex and get stds. Withholding the information from them does not guarantee they will not get std, just the same as teaching dependency to a woman does not guarantee a permenant marriage.

Again, it seems that you have issues beyond just the usual family values discussion.

Family values implies a lot more than the innocent surface picture.

Hate to tell you, but biology makes women more "dependent" than men.

Since when did having breasts and a vagina make women more dependent? You'll need to take that one up with independent women like Chondolizza Rice and Hillary Clinton.

If women were not told they should be dependent on men, or dependent at all--if we expected our daughters to prepare for raising a family and supporting themselves, we wouldn't be having these problems.

So...you don't believe in marriage?

Since when did expecting adults to prepare for raising a family and supporting themselves become equivalent to not being married?

Marriage is the best option. But marriage doesn't always work out. And when it doesn't, men and women need to be prepared for it.

What are you saying here?

Better to be safe than sorry.

Facts are facts, and the poorest people by far are single mothers, who have been abandoned by the men who impregnated them, and the society that doesn't hold those men responsible.

Yes, that's true. The sad thing is, these women and the men who impregnated them are often irresponsible and not-so-smart when it comes to long-term planning, reasoning, and just thinking things out. They lack common sense. I wonder why the children are left with the mothers more often than not? Perhaps we just need to give the child to the father more often. That would make him take some responsibility.

How can you tie conservatism to a single one of those policies?? What bigoted rot. As Nancy Griffith said, the only hate I see around here is coming from your side.

As time goes on we all become more progressive-thinking, and those who linger behind in the views of yesterday are seen as extremists. That school of thought which lingers far behind is that of extremism. That which lingers a little behind is conservatism. But you're right; today's conservatism is not yesterday's conservatism. Yesterday's conservatism is today's extremism. Today, we'd all view the conservatism of the 1800s as extremism. In several hundred years from now, people will consider conservatism of right now to be extremist, and my views as a progressive liberal will be viewed as moderate.

 

[Vylo]

increasing the minimum wage too much is dangerous.

I would agree. NJ is about to raise it's minimum wage 2 dollars over the next 2 years. I wonder what effect that will have.

From my viewpoint, conservative policies are the most devastating. I.E. slavery, racism, sexism, and all kinds of non-progressive hatred.

Um, the first 2 really aren't partisan related if you go through American history. Southern democrats were originally the proponents of racism early on and then republicans took that over. Look what areas of the U.S. went from blue to red.