Does conservatism always = hypocrite?

Nectarines

Superior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Posts
499
Media
72
Likes
4,911
Points
363
Gender
Male
Are there "levels" beside Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal?

I have never tried to be a poster guy for any title, yet alone political. However, I can't get past what self titled "conservative," "religious," or "Republican valued," people have been advocating. Specifically, the Russian anti gay propaganda laws. Such people have been saying 3 things: 1.) They're their own country. We should respect the law. 2.) America should adopt the law to our "own pathetic Obamaciety." Or 3.) Send all the queer/fag/homos over there.

The Russian law doesn't make being "alternative lifestyled" illegal. It makes the "propagation and dissemination" of homosexuality illegal. This is an obvious violation to the US Constitution's 1st amendment, Freedom of Speech. Of which Conservatives live and die bye. So why want it here? How did America go backwards with this Constitutional right. Right, its the US constitution, but the founding fathers also inked the phrase "all men are created equal." Would the defense also mean its not right for Russia to punish Americans who speak out against their law since being an American comes with an unalienable right to Freedom of Speech?

I've also heard to be conservative is to favor small/reduced government. How can one be conservative; support and encourage a government that regulates what its citizens can speak or organize for?
 

Baoka

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Posts
288
Media
1
Likes
11
Points
53
Location
Wild West, Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We're not a single country united under one set of beliefs, each political position would like to change the constitution in their own ways, and none of them really advocate for the Bill of rights unless it suits them. Each would make meaningful changes to the constitution if given a chance, and they have.

Liberals seek social justice by adding to the rights and protections of people through government regulation. A very basic idea of liberalism is that if no one is harmed by a thing intentionally or otherwise, a person should have the right to engage in the practice or consumption out of what some would call pathological altruism.

Conservatives need to be divided between moral conservatism and and fiscal conservatism.

Moralists would seek to impose their views on the populace, that's why moral conservatives in America call America a Christian country that should be subject to church doctrine, the same brand can be found in the Muslim middle-eastern nations advocating for sharia law, and its not just religion but also guns and marriage.

A financial conservative is a person that would seek to limit the powers of the government and the revenue it can take in for any number of moral, philosophical, economic, or self-centered reasons. They want to operate as freely as possible. If a subject doesn't affect their coffers, they don't have a stake and default to another position.

A moderate is a person who subscribes to the idea of equality between separate positions and tries to mix both in a well meant manner to appease everyone. These people also tend to not know very much about the diverging positions they are trying to force together in their own minds, and are viewed by the extremes of other positions as limp-dicked, half-assed, malleable, and shortsighted.

What you are reading are the comments of moral conservatives who disapprove of homosexuality, and they'd prefer to adopt Russia's stance on gay rights to the point of disappearing homosexuality altogether from public and even private life. That our constitution in no way supports that kind of policy doesn't matter to them, its what those particular people want. Ideology and dogma inform our beliefs more than old rhetoric and laws do.
 
Last edited:

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The word "conservative" -- and the word "liberal" -- as currently used in America have lost all connection to their historical meanings and serve no real purpose except to make communication difficult and confuse people from other countries.

The words are basically shorthand for two opposing sets of values, or lifestyles. That's all.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
We're not a single country united under one set of beliefs, each political position would like to change the constitution in their own ways, and none of them really advocate for the Bill of rights unless it suits them. Each would make meaningful changes to the constitution if given a chance, and they have.
...
Conservatives need to be divided between moral conservatism and and fiscal conservatism.

Moralists would seek to impose their views on the populace,
...
A financial conservative is a person that would seek to limit the powers of the government and the revenue it can take in for any number of moral, philosophical, economic, or self-centered reasons.
...
A moderate is a person who subscribes to the idea of equality between separate positions and tries to mix both in a well meant manner to appease everyone. These people also tend to not know very much about the diverging positions they are trying to force together in their own minds, and are viewed by the extremes of other positions as limp-dicked, half-assed, malleable, and shortsighted.

This is a bit one-sided, and skewed, but it's better than I expected. I'll give you credit for a very good try.

First off, I take exception with your use of words like all and none. They're very dangerous words, and rarely if ever true. No, ALL conservatives do not believe exactly the same thing, but there are major trends on which we tend to agree. And, they tend to be the big ones.

One major theme that we agree on is the rule of law. And yes, a huge number of us do absolutely advocate for the Bill of Rights, regularly, even when we don't particularly like the implementation. It *is* the law of the land, and we respect laws. Since you used the example of freedom of speech, there is an old saying that may explain it better than I ever could. "I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

As for moral vs fiscal conservatism, yes, that is fairly accurate. Your concept of moral conservatives as spiteful zealots who wish to impose their own agendas on everybody else is a bit skewed, to put it mildly, and I mentioned that earlier.

Moral conservatives *do* tend to skew Christian, so yes Christian values do tend to be better represented than many other belief systems, but they come back to the basic 10 commandments...don't steal, don't murder, don't covert your neighbor's goods, etc. Those basic tenets are common to almost all belief systems, and don't really represent a problem.

One of the classic examples used to explain moral conservatism is the argument that many use, that a fetus is an unborn baby, and that aborting that fetus is murder. Operating from the assumption that the fetus is a living and discrete person, its abortion must be seen as a murder...hence, the moral dilemma. Wrestling with large concepts like this is one of the hallmarks of moral conservatism, and yet most of us who find abortion to be morally reprehensible realize that it is an *occasionally* necessary procedure, which means that outlawing it would be a mistake.

Oh, but what about the rights of the mother? They remain protected...but we also recognize the rights of the baby. Remember, the fetus is an (unborn) person with all the same rights as any other person! Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...wouldn't abortion violate that person's right to life?

Now, let's get down to explaining fiscal conservatives...we are more open to the social issues which you said liberals are so excited about, but remain more concerned with the financials. Taxes, efficient use of funds, etc. I believe this side is self explanatory...and it doesn't always mean that we want to avoid spending money. But we want to spend money *wisely,* instead of just throwing it at problems willy-nilly.

Most conservatives are a blend of the two...the precise mix defining their particular approach to the world.

Now, as for the stuff you said about moderates, there *is* some truth to it. Moderates tend to adopt some views from both sides of the aisle, and yes their middling position is often viewed as weak by those on both sides. But, when done well, moderates can be a breath of fresh air.

Nectarines: In answer to your original question, no, conservative is not equal to hypocrite. By the same token, I don't believe for a moment, that all liberals are deluded morons, though I'm sure I could find a couple to hold up as an extreme example.

Outliers can be found in any group, and can be used to misrepresent *any* belief system.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Not always. Usually. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I guess "hypocrites" can be found on both sides of the "fence". Some I think are just trying to do "the right thing", though opinions on exactly what that is vary widely.

For example, abortion was mentioned. Some conservatives believe life begins at conception, and they believe "the right thing" is to preserve that life. But then, is it not also "the right thing" to care for that "person's" quality of life AFTER they come into the world? If one cares about life, why fight measures and laws designed to insure adequate postnatal care? Why propose measures designed to undermine healthcare, cut funding for education, etc.

If you believe in "individual rights" and argue that a business has the right to refuse service to a particular group of people, then what of those people's rights NOT to be discriminated against?

And what about the rights of people to be who they are, and marry whomever they choose? To not live in a society that discriminates against them?

I think (my opinion, mind you) that when some speak of "individual rights" they're speaking of THEIR rights to decide what OTHER INDIVIDUALS should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
This is a bit one-sided, and skewed, but it's better than I expected. I'll give you credit for a very good try.

First off, I take exception with your use of words like all and none. They're very dangerous words, and rarely if ever true. No, ALL conservatives do not believe exactly the same thing, but there are major trends on which we tend to agree. And, they tend to be the big ones.
Thing is, he didn't use the word "ALL" anywhere in his post.

I don't think that in general right wingers are more hypocritical than left wingers. It's easy to find examples of either type of person saying one thing and doing another.

I think it takes more strength of character and intellect to be a moderate and realize that there is no one, always correct side in public affairs. Too many people today automatically follow along under one banner or another without really thinking about it. Five or six percent of swing voters decide every national election. I think these are the people who actually think about issues and don't see everything that Obama does as automatically wrong and know that Mr Romney actually had some good ideas in his portfolio as well.

Being a knee-jerk anything is weak in my opinion.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Thing is, he didn't use the word "ALL" anywhere in his post.
...
Being a knee-jerk anything is weak in my opinion.

His message was edited after I made my post. He did say ALL in the original.

As for the knee jerk stuff, we're in agreement on that one. Wholeheartedly. As I said, moderation, when done well, can be a breath of fresh air.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Ok I've read the op about 5 times and I'm still not sure what you're asking so I cannot comment. Is it that you've seen conservative groups defending Russia's treatment of homosexuals? Did Sarah Palin praise governor Gorbechov for all that crazy stuff happening in Russia that she can see from her house in Alaska?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
As for the knee jerk stuff, we're in agreement on that one. Wholeheartedly. As I said, moderation, when done well, can be a breath of fresh air.

Moderation is fine, but the “done well” part makes all the difference. In matters of basic civil rights, for instance, there is no room for compromise. Can we accept a society in which all men (and women) are created “sort of” equal?

Barry Goldwater, of all people, said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” while “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” That principle can be dangerously misapplied, and Goldwater's uncompromising pronouncement contributed to his defeat in the 1964 presidential race. Still, he had a point.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree completely that one must have principles and stand up for them. If a conservative or liberal, can converse rationally in an informed and unemotional way about politics, it's always enjoyable and entertaining.

The problem is far too many people, who no doubt have honest political leanings, aren't in possession of real facts, either historical or in terms of current events. They didn't pay attention in history or civics class and only perk up to the news when it's something that effects them directly, is a natural disaster, or a wardrobe malfunction.
 

Nectarines

Superior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Posts
499
Media
72
Likes
4,911
Points
363
Gender
Male
Thanks for the input. I've learned to not read into the comments anymore for either side lol. People who see good and bad on topics tend to just jeep to their self I think...leaving the extremes free to blow up the comments and Facebook News feeds. Thanks for clarifications and thoughts to keep in mind.

My question was on just one topic -Russias controversial new law being brought to light by upcoming Olympics. It raised many questions as to how a large group could wish a law into American law when the Host county itself claims to suspend the law and punishments to athletes and fans during the games. Seems absurd.
 

Petrolhead

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Posts
7,344
Media
40
Likes
881
Points
298
Location
London, UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
discrimination is never acceptable. but it seems some people are prepared to accept it when it chimes in with their own prejudices. we have too much hate on society, why can't we just let people be who they are?
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks for the input. I've learned to not read into the comments anymore for either side lol. People who see good and bad on topics tend to just jeep to their self I think...leaving the extremes free to blow up the comments and Facebook News feeds. Thanks for clarifications and thoughts to keep in mind.

My question was on just one topic -Russias controversial new law being brought to light by upcoming Olympics. It raised many questions as to how a large group could wish a law into American law when the Host county itself claims to suspend the law and punishments to athletes and fans during the games. Seems absurd.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that Russia will be suspending the law on promoting homosexuality entirely during the games? Or that it's not going to apply to foreign visitors during that time?

If some constitutional fundamentalists are thinking that would be a good type of law to enact in the US, yes it's hypocritical. That is if they have a clue about what's written in the document that is. Good chance they don't though.

But I don't know if the Cons are bigger hypocrites than the Libs. Kinda 50-50 me thinks.
 
1

185248

Guest
We just had a married with family, elected state politician, conservative, stand down because of sexual impropriety. Sending lewd pics and text messages of himself to his mistress, using public funds..etc..etc. He was chair of the powerfull Parlimentary Ethics Committee.

Hypocrite? I would say so. So were his mates for placing him in that position.

He does not want to face the committee he very recently chaired. Go figure. Hypocrite? Dumbfuck more likely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Attacking socialism and red scaring is part of the GOP's platform. But, the 'socialist' country they love to smear is anti-gay, which is also part of their platform. It seems that the GOP is going to have to decide which they hate more: socialism or gays.
 
Last edited:

lil_babymoon

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
221
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I would say the idea of liberalism is hypocritical. They don't embrace pluralism, rather they force their views upon the world in the name of 'development'.


Africa and most of Asia has experienced this 'development' in the name of colonialism which still continues to this very day -i.e. the absolute reprehensible actions of what the French are doing currently in Niger- look at how well that turned out.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I would say the idea of liberalism is hypocritical. They don't embrace pluralism, rather they force their views upon the world in the name of 'development'.

Africa and most of Asia has experienced this 'development' in the name of colonialism which still continues to this very day -i.e. the absolute reprehensible actions of what the French are doing currently in Niger- look at how well that turned out.

Much of the 'development' around the world has been driven economically by capitalism and has little to do with any supposed liberal agenda.
 

lil_babymoon

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
221
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Much of the 'development' around the world has been driven economically by capitalism and has little to do with any supposed liberal agenda.

Half of the countries in Africa and almost all in the Middle East are being routinely exploited through one of most infamous means of development-foreign 'aid' or being made war against to teach a lesson to these 'third-worlders' in how to behave in a 'civilised' manner, killing and inflicting millions to death and destruction in the process.