Well This is a Conservative Conundrum

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most conservatives don't think birth control is wrong.
Condoms for porn stars is not about birth control.

Other than that I find it hard to believe conservatives care. This isn't really a First Amendment issue. It barely adds to the general blanket of employee safety regulations we have. And it was done by a state, and states have more power to have detailed regulations.

Then why do they oppose teaching high school students about it.

Because they think discussions about sexuality are family matters and not government-run school matters. Most conservatives use contraception.

But according to their principles, shouldn't it be decided by each state whether it's up to family or school, rather than by the fed?

What? No. The Constitituon gives states more of certain kinds of power than the Feds. That doesn't mean all things should be done by the state. Many things should be done by neither government.

But even if the states should not do it, that does not mean the fed should have the power to stop them from doing it, does it? Shouldn't it be up to each state's citizens to stop it from doing so? You seem to be saying the fed does not have powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution UNLESS they are powers you think it should have.

[Anonymous]

Takoma, I'm not saying something that complicated. Conservatives in general think it is a bad idea for schools to teach contraception. That's a policy preference. It may be that states have the power to do it but they shouldn't.

The Feds are neither here nor there. I didn't say word one about the feds stopping it.

[Anonymous]

They shouldn't do it, not they shouldn't have the power.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't do it, not they shouldn't have the power.

Understood. I apologize for reading something into your statement that was not there. However, I think there are people who call themselves conservatives who are not as discerning as you, even on DCUM, and I sometimes carelessly fall into the trap of confusing you Anonymouses (Anonymice?) with each other.

[Anonymous]

This isn't a conservative conundrum, per se, just an issue that exposes that different flavors of conservatives have different views on some particular issues. Libertarian-leaning conservatives are probably opposed; traditionalist-minded conservatives are probably split, with some disliking government regulation that apparently legitimizes porn with condoms, while others likely pleased that it may damage the porn industry. Most conservatives probably share the vague sense that this is just the kind of wacky thing that happens on the left coast.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't a conservative conundrum, per se, just an issue that exposes that different flavors of conservatives have different views on some particular issues. Libertarian-leaning conservatives are probably opposed; traditionalist-minded conservatives are probably split, with some disliking government regulation that apparently legitimizes porn with condoms, while others likely pleased that it may damage the porn industry. Most conservatives probably share the vague sense that this is just the kind of wacky thing that happens on the left coast.

"Conservative" and "Republican" are far too vague now. Economic conservatives like you have almost nothing in common with the yahoos. If Faux weren't telling them to support you, I don't think it would ever hold together. As it is, you have to wonder why you're still in the party - if you are - that starts pointless wars on credit.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't a conservative conundrum, per se, just an issue that exposes that different flavors of conservatives have different views on some particular issues. Libertarian-leaning conservatives are probably opposed; traditionalist-minded conservatives are probably split, with some disliking government regulation that apparently legitimizes porn with condoms, while others likely pleased that it may damage the porn industry. Most conservatives probably share the vague sense that this is just the kind of wacky thing that happens on the left coast.

"Conservative" and "Republican" are far too vague now. Economic conservatives like you have almost nothing in common with the yahoos. If Faux weren't telling them to support you, I don't think it would ever hold together. As it is, you have to wonder why you're still in the party - if you are - that starts pointless wars on credit.

For someone so obviously intelligent, you need a little bit of recalibration. There's a substantial grain of truth in most political positions, even those of the "yahoos." If you don't agree, think hard about the consequences that the removal of traditional social mores have had on lots of people -- is it really so hard to admit that religious traditionalists may have a bit of a point, even if on balance you disagree? If you are holding any political views with a probability of greater than about 80% certainty or so, you aren't really doing much hard thinking.

While the Republicans clearly paper over some pretty significant divisions within their ranks, it's not so fractious a bunch as the motley assortment of interest groups comprising the Democratic party. The joys of a two-party system, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most conservatives don't think birth control is wrong.
Condoms for porn stars is not about birth control.

Other than that I find it hard to believe conservatives care. This isn't really a First Amendment issue. It barely adds to the general blanket of employee safety regulations we have. And it was done by a state, and states have more power to have detailed regulations.

Then why do they oppose teaching high school students about it.

Because they think discussions about sexuality are family matters and not government-run school matters. Most conservatives use contraception.

But according to their principles, shouldn't it be decided by each state whether it's up to family or school, rather than by the fed?

What? No. The Constitituon gives states more of certain kinds of power than the Feds. That doesn't mean all things should be done by the state. Many things should be done by neither government.

But they are not just against forced teaching about contraception. They are against teaching it even if participation is optional.

So basically, you can be forced to hear a prayer in school, but not given the option of learning about contraception.

[TheManWithAUsername]

anonymous wrote:For someone so obviously intelligent, you need a little bit of recalibration.

You can flatter me all you want, but no one but the wife will be recalibrating this guy.

anonymous wrote:There's a substantial grain of truth in most political positions, even those of the "yahoos." If you don't agree, think hard about the consequences that the removal of traditional social mores have had on lots of people -- is it really so hard to admit that religious traditionalists may have a bit of a point, even if on balance you disagree?

I wasn't just talking about religious yahoos. Since you asked, no, I don't think there's much of a case for putting more Christianity in government.

But even where I might agree with something a yahoo says, a broken clock's right twice a day. If, say, Evangelicals suddenly decided that God wanted them to help the poor, I'd still consider them yahoos. (Of course, I might be a little quieter about it while they were on my side, like you guys are.)

My point wasn't that you shouldn't associate with them because they're yahoos; it was that your interests aren't really aligned. You (I'm guessing) don't want religion in your government and don't want jingoism in your foreign policy. They shouldn't want more maldistribution of wealth.

anonymous wrote:If you are holding any political views with a probability of greater than about 80% certainty or so, you aren't really doing much hard thinking.

Hmm. I might agree that one's certainty about policy questions should be on a curve with a mean of about 65%. But again, I was referring to them - most relevantly, the basis for their positions - not necessarily their positions. Whatever my degree of certainty about the Iraq war, I'm confident that beliefs that Sadaam caused 9/ll or that God wants us to bring Christianity to the Middle East are bad reasons for it.

anonymous wrote:While the Republicans clearly paper over some pretty significant divisions within their ranks, it's not so fractious a bunch as the motley assortment of interest groups comprising the Democratic party. The joys of a two-party system, I suppose.

The biggest split in the Dems now is between the constituency and the representatives. Within the constituency, I think that even though there are a lot of special interests, there's still a lot of agreement. If someone tells me he's an environmentalist, I tend to assume that he's pro-choice, anti-gun, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the porn industry will grind to a halt. I think preventing STD's or HIV is very important.

Grind. LOL

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most conservatives don't think birth control is wrong.
Condoms for porn stars is not about birth control.

Other than that I find it hard to believe conservatives care. This isn't really a First Amendment issue. It barely adds to the general blanket of employee safety regulations we have. And it was done by a state, and states have more power to have detailed regulations.

Then why do they oppose teaching high school students about it.

Because they think discussions about sexuality are family matters and not government-run school matters. Most conservatives use contraception.

But according to their principles, shouldn't it be decided by each state whether it's up to family or school, rather than by the fed?

What? No. The Constitituon gives states more of certain kinds of power than the Feds. That doesn't mean all things should be done by the state. Many things should be done by neither government.

But even if the states should not do it, that does not mean the fed should have the power to stop them from doing it, does it? Shouldn't it be up to each state's citizens to stop it from doing so? You seem to be saying the fed does not have powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution UNLESS they are powers you think it should have.

Chistianist religious teaching in schools? A-OK. Sex Ed? No way!

[Anonymous]

14:09 at I would say about half of conservatives don't want religion in public schools as a policy preference.

MWUN at least has the seed of his idea right; the populists on the right drive the libertarians on the right crazy. So ask yourselves, what are the Dems doing wrong that libertarians won't join them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:09 at I would say about half of conservatives don't want religion in public schools as a policy preference.

MWUN at least has the seed of his idea right; the populists on the right drive the libertarians on the right crazy. So ask yourselves, what are the Dems doing wrong that libertarians won't join them?

Libertarians are for small government, and that doesn't work well with Dems or Republicans. But the Republicans have the best chance, if they could only ditch the religious/social issues and get back to a minimalist foreign policy.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:But the Republicans have the best chance, if they could only ditch the religious/social issues and get back to a minimalist foreign policy.

I.e., lose every election. There's no party w/o the yahoos.

Pulling estimates straight out of my ass, I bet that if the oligarchy wasn't choking out alternative ideologies, we'd be about 1/3 economic conservatives (many of them currently Dems), 1/3 Kennedy-type leftists, and 1/3 yahoos. Many of the third class would be economic leftists in the sense that they'd want government protection relief from their relative poverty.

[Anonymous]

I have friends across the spectrum and one, many, who is an econ conservative is a Dem. He's also gay, which explains it.