But wouldn't that invalidate using the term "social conservative" outside of that specific period in history?
For example, a post-Civil War "social conservative" in Russia would want a return to autocracy and all that Imperial Russian jazz, while a post-Glasnost "social conservative" would want a return to the society of the Soviet Union.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-08 4:56
>>6
Social conservative is a modern term that arose with religious democratic political parties, their views would be considered radical in the past.
The term you are looking for is "conservative" which is much more ambiguous and encompasses the situations you described.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-08 21:06
OKay, for you idiots who obviously have no idea what you are talking about: "social conservative" is distinct from "fiscal conservative".
It means having social values that are conservative, which at this point means: anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-sex before marriage, anti-actual free speech, anti-marijuana,and anti-fun. It also means wanting to impose your values upon others, also known as "legislating morality".
Social libertarians, on the other hand, don't give two shits what any consenting adults do with each other, or if they do drugs, or say "fuck" in the supermarket.
NOW, do you finally get it?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-08 21:22
Stop trying to post when having a manshaft up your anus
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-11 15:03
Manshaft Anus: Private Eye
It's a screenplay I'm working on..
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-11 17:32
They're the only good conservatives. The rest are a bunch of greedy poseurs.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-27 19:10
*bump*
Name:
heisann montebello2011-02-27 20:35
>>12
Why the hell did you bump such a lame thread?
The worst conservatives are the conservatives. But they're in no way worse (or better) than the radicals.
The only good people are those who follow their conscience and take things in due speed, not some Hitlerjugend with a parole up his ass.
I hate suffering. How do we create a utopia where everyone is happy, there is virtually no suffering apart from the occasional illness and accident that cannot be reasonably prevented and people are free to advance science and live religious spiritual and philosophically meaningful lives?
Discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 15:18
>>22
That's going to get totaly lost in here. Why don't you start a thred on it?
>>22
Well, for starters we'd have to get rid of all the tyrannic/stupid leaders in the world. I don't think that'd be easy.
Though, in a small country with a small population, like e.g. Norway or Iceland, it may be fairly doable to test such a utopia. :)