Social conservatism is toxic and the product of religion

Social conservatism is toxic and the product of religion.

Other urls found in this thread:

lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Fuck off, this ain't no high level thread

It's necessary. Sorry that you're some weirdo that polite society frowns upon.

*tips fedora*

Social progressivism and progress for progress sake leading to blind movement (straight off of a cliff) is the product of the breakdown of authoritarian religion.

Sorry, what was more harmful? A group of old people who told you not to masturbate or hordes of black ""youths"" looting due to a social media campaign? That's right.

et tu, user?

Necessary for what? Sounds like half an axiom.

>religion
>bad

stalinist gommies hated kikes and fags and trannies senpai

I'm an atheist conservative, piss off. Modern liberalism is just Christianity without teeth.

What school is this that is teaching that theories should be proven? fucking racists!

Necessary to keep things like SJWs and Feminisms from emerging.

Read Durkheim and his position on social control.

that shoop made me spit my drink out

Degeneracy is a product of Judaism and gayness a result of the childhood trauma of getting ones foreskin eaten.

I'm an athiest, but honestly, I still prefer social conservatism over progressivism.

With social conservatism you know where it leads, with progressivism you don't know what the next new social issue is going to be.

Literally the worst use of photoshop I've seen in years.

BRAAAAAPT

Skinny fat isn't attractive but she's hot.

Not an argument.

Trying to make actual progress is generally a good thing for society. You should keep what works and modify for the people it fucks over. You're trying to now challenge the opposite view (or liberals) but I'm a pluralist. I added social on as a qualifier for a reason.


> Sorry, what was more harmful? A group of old people who told you not to masturbate or hordes of black ""youths"" looting due to a social media campaign? That's right.

False dichotomy. First of all yes, they can fuck off cause masturbation is empirically healthy. Second of all, 'black' people tend to be religious social conservatives. They're just not retarded enough and vote against their own interests like poor 'white people' seem to do.

>progress is generally a good thing for society

Go on lemming, do the next step, always forward, progress is always good, there are never going to be unintentional consequences.

Fun fact: the slogans "forward" and "progress" have been invented by bolshevik Jews to break the resistant of the Russian Christians before the Jews slaughtered them.
Whoever uses these terms nowadays is either a brainwashed shabos goy or a literal Jew, trying to convince goys to act against their own interest

"Keeping what works" is literally traditionalism in a nutshell. Its basically empiricism applied to social relations. Incremental social changes to particular problems is a good idea. Redesigning all of society to match utopian theories of questionable worth, is not.

Modern liberalism tends to be just as delusional as religious conservatism, with the added bonus of having far more political power. The religious Right lost the culture wars. Complaining about them not is like complaining about Nazis in modern Germany. Its a fictitious clawless enemy.

Alright, take out every buzz word.


Holy mother of conspiracy theories.

Things that can't be proven should not be believed.

Correct, which is why no one here will actually defend their position. They will counter by trying to bring up the far left. I'm not a communist and I think private property is good for countries and citizens.

Let me repeat myself,


> Social conservatism is toxic and the product of religion.

Your fundamental position is wrong though, as you are arguing with two atheistic conservatives. Social conservatism is independent of religion, and many socially conservative ideas are good ideas.

Okay, nice argument to support your claim

> actual progress
????????????

What an Islamophobic opinion

>Holy mother of conspiracy theories.

Just like tying social conservatism to religion, implying there is no social conservatism in jungle tribes...

Stop the role playing Schlomo, we all know what you are trying to do!

And yet, many of those religious conventions come from good sensible practices. Don't have sex before marriage? Well, young single people are ill equipped to provide for children. Probably a good practice regardless of religion. Don't eat pork? Not as applicable today, but you can get parasites. A good policy for most of human history. Don't steal. Yep. It kind of fucks up society if everyone is stealing from each other. The list goes on.

Sure, there are a lot of religious rules and standards that have lost meaning in our modern world, but they came about for good reason and plenty of them are still worth while.

>Trying to make actual progress is generally a good thing for society.
It's this thinking that leads to progress without direction... Straight off a cliff.

If no direction is obvious, I'd argue it's time to stop and sit on our hands until a direction is obvious. Doing things for the sake of doing things often has the opposite effect, especially when these plans are malformed.


>False dichotomy. First of all yes, they can fuck off cause masturbation is empirically healthy.
More so a slippery slope to drive my point; the BLM crowd are essentially activists for the sake of activism. They don't know what is wrong with blacks, they don't know what needs to be done, they don't have any conception of a solution, they don't even know that they don't know.. but you better bet they're doing something about it!

Here is my point, for all the problems with social conservatism, progress for the sake of progress is worse.

>Second of all, 'black' people tend to be religious social conservatives.
I disagree.

All old people seem to be conservatives due to a romanticism of the past and all young people seem to be rampant progressivists due to sheer restlessness.

>They're just not retarded enough and vote against their own interests like poor 'white people' seem to do.
But they are retarded enough to indulge in media that's arguably causing them problems? That's really what it comes down to, their music tells them to distrust cops, their social media tells them to riot, their fashion tells them to dress distinctively, their entire culture and group mentality is what's actually causing them the problems.

But getting someone to admit everything they know, believe, love and collectively accept is wrong is getting someone to believe they're chained in a cave.

Conservatism is cancer as an offense but not as a defense. Given the way that a group of people can easily exploit a liberal society, just like all Ahmeds in Europe, it is of course understandable that people would be on the defensive when it comes to preserving their own culture.

Nice strawman you got there. I never said anything was 'always good.' So you just flat out deny progress can happen in society....across the board? If not then you admit there's ways to access society and see if you can tweak it. The rest is all Jewish tinfoil stuff/normal pol.

Yes, we should keep what works...and change the things that need to be fixed. It should be a balance between the two. Utopias are almost always bad; you end up killing people in the name of a better society.


Yeah, list the social positions you have and why you believe them.

Progress that actually matters in a tangible way for groups of people without having a downside for the majority population or in some ways benefits both. It's not easy and takes many people's differing views clashing.

Congratulations on your advanced thinking, reddit

Social conservatism (deep regard for tradition) is venerable and the product of people who went through life just as we are and found some things worth passing on. It's like the old South Carolina saying, if you find a turtle on a fence post it didn't get there by accident.

I would also say that this isn't a matter of right and left. George Orwell had an immense regard for tradition, because he recognized it as something organic from the bottom up that binded us together, and was a force against totalianarism, which sought to change from the top down. He insisted on a church of England wedding and burial despite not being spiritual.

>Social conservatism is toxic

your brain is toxic

>Progress that actually matters
???????????????

I have no phobia of anyone. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and everyone else are apes on a rock orbiting a hydrogen ball.

I eat bacon.

Therefore your argument is theologically unsound. Jews believe in nonsense too....in-fact they half started this train wreck unknowingly or not. Fucking Yahweh....

Great, lets take the good stuff and chuck all the rest. Sorry, while pork might have been bad to eat back then we have since increased our technology to the point where we no longer need such dietary laws. The things that actually make it into our legal system are things like theft. Which have an empirical backing of being bad for society at large. If the theistic religions pruned their holy books we wouldn't be having a problem. Unfforunailty they claim it comes from their deity which means they keep old laws for bad reasons.


I would disagree. What ISIS wanted more than anything was to provoke us to become far right. It's why they bomb and threaten us in the way they do. A religious war can't make sense unless they get both sides fighting. Most of the people on this board share the same values the 'Islamic State' does just with afferent Arabic religion.

I'm still not sure by what you mean by "progress", all you've given is vague descriptions that basically just entail more government spending/larger government in general.

The last time we had a movement like this was during the 90s and at least here in Canada, the effect was disastrous and basically left a massive mark on the white employment across the country. You couldn't even get a temp job if you were a 20 year old white guy with no children back then unless you had connections.

Allowing people more freedom. For instance, with gay marriage everyone gains rights and no one loses them. You have progressed a situation for many people which is better and negatively effects no one.

Not an argument.

We should always strive for a medium-sized government.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'movement like this' unless you mean liberals in office. By progress I mean something objectively better for the society or as close to such as possible.

Flawless logic of a retard.

By making marriage extend to people who cannot produce children, you're removing the privilege that tax codes and other laws applied to marriage as an institution.

Western countries have a birth rate problem if you haven't noticed. This is not a good time to dash the very point of marriage, to enshrine the family (including children) as the principal unit of civilization.

What's your solution then? Open wide and bend over? I think the only solution is systematic eradication.

But removing gun rights is a social progressives dream, and that gives no one freedom

So what is progress?

There's always someone who anthropomorphizes websites. Guess it fits into the us vs them mentality.

Tradition is useful when you want to pass on knowledge from one generation to the next. It's not useful when it passes down bad or harmful practices. As you noted the democratic socialists George Orwell had his own but he didn't use those traditions to deny people rights.

I used to think that as well, but the problem was simply that I had never actually been exposed to any form of legitimate counter-argument. Social conservatism doesn't follow arbitrarily from religion, it follows rationally from religion - at least mostly.

Gay people have children and create families. We extended that right to those faimlies and made their lives better.

Marriage has also never been for children. It's a legal contract between consenting adults.

More education and less religion produces fewer babies. It's why America has more teen pregnancy and abortion than any other western country. I love how this is a vague threat of the world ending from under population. 95% of couples have pre-material sex so the baby making for us as a species is peachy.

Ask a social progressive. You have a right to hunt for your food and protect your family. I support background checks, registrars,training and everything else required of a killing machine. (Like we do with cars.)


You're never going to kill bad ideas with bombs. You only make more martyrs. I would have sent troops in a long time ago. We should have overwhelmed them before they had our tech. Mosul would have already been ours by now if I was in control.

On a side note we're slowly gaining territory back. Iraq will be ours with this last push.

And where is tradition denying people rights, other than the ad hoc rights that were thought up in the past 20 years so people could say "you're denying my right"

Yeah, give me some statistics on the number of gays who have families. That's ignoring the whole argument of raising a child without a mother or father, and how that emotionally stunts them.
>Marriage has also never been for children. It's a legal contract between consenting adults.
Yes retard, for the purpose of having children

I'm talking about the western world, not the world at large. People on the left always use our birth rates as a justification to import more niggers

>Ask a social progressive
I did, and you are trying to blow smoke up my ass

> And where is tradition denying people rights, other than the ad hoc rights that were thought up in the past 20 years so people could say "you're denying my right"

The groups you claim to have been from 20 years ago are as old as our species. We're talking women, dark skin people and gays. It's twenty years to you because that's when you became aware of their issues.

lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics

94,627 gay couples right now have adopted children. That's not including children from past relationships or in vitro fertilization.

> Yes retard, for the purpose of having children

Not according to the law. You actually need evidence for assertions.

> I'm talking about the western world, not the world at large. People on the left always use our birth rates as a justification to import more niggers.

So conspiracy and good ole classic racism. Never change pol.

> You aren't A.
> Therefore you must be C

How's that going for ya?

Not an argument

hating gays is not on accident.

millennia ago people figured out that gays in general were mentally ill and unfit to continue civilization.

they were usually killed off as they had no real use and were only a waste of resources.

Yes, actually it is. Just because you aren't "A" doesn't mean your position becomes "C" Just because you don't like grape juice doesn't mean you like orange juice.

It's not an 'accident' because it's deliberate in the Abrahamic religions. All of the surrounding cultures did not care about sexual orientation. It took peter the prude to usher in this level of sexual hate.

Not an argument
You can't id yourself as progressive then deny it later

Nigger

Great, now all you need to do is find where I have ever identified as a progressive.

Here, you may be new to computers. Use ctrl+ F to search for words.

>The groups you claim to have been from 20 years ago are as old as our species. We're talking women, dark skin people and gays. It's twenty years to you because that's when you became aware of their issues.
Completely misunderstood the statement, read it again. I'm referring to the right to health care, the right to abortion, the right to marriage, etc.


>94,627 gay couples right now have adopted children. That's not including children from past relationships or in vitro fertilization.
So what's that, less than 5 percent? And you want to give tax breaks to gay marriages for the 5 percent chance they have adopt children in an incredibly dubious set up bordering on child abuse?

>Not according to the law. You actually need evidence for assertions.
Because the wording of marriage in our lawbooks is the first and final word right? Literally what do you think the purpose of marriage is if not to elevate the union to a level of permanence for the sake of maintaining a stable environment for rearing children


>so conspiracy and good ole classic racism. Never change pol.
So common knowledge is conspiracy. Never change reddit pseudo intellectuals

This entire thread. You keep espousing progressive drivel, making you one

Can't wait to reeducate you and your ilk

America's success as a nation is based on social conservatism.

It doesn't mean you never change, but you do so slowly and you turn into a "melting pot". Not "diversity" but a melting pot where outsiders are shunned and ridiculed until they fit in.

I guess that sucks if you're the outsider but the upshot is that 10 years later you fit in and everyone can be happy.

This "diversity" bullshit is what's caused all the turmoil that's been happening and all the pressure that's been building up. America is not a melting pot anymore. New cultures are not being absorbed. They are staying separate and it's creating friction.

We never should have respected diversity for the sake of diversity. It does not work.

I think that there is a lost clan of White culture that existed with the Greeks and Romans. I call it lost because I loathe everything that is redneck, country, white trash, hick, hillbilly.

Hispanics have the Italians.
Africans have the Aborigines.
Asians have the Japanese.
What do whites have?

I know how hard it must be for your brain to think outside the two-party system.

> reeducate

Well, that took a turn towards big brother rather quickly.


And I'm saying those struggle for rights have existed for as long as humans have written laws. Each one poses questions that we answer in society like 'Should abortion be legal?' These are far from new unless you don't study history.

> So what's that, less than 5 percent? And you want to give tax breaks to gay marriages for the 5 percent chance they have adopt children in an incredibly dubious set up bordering on child abuse?

Wouldn't have mattered if it's .000000000000001%. That how our constitution works you should get it out some time. Your child abuse arguments are emotional dribble.

> Because the wording of marriage in our lawbooks is the first and final word right? Literally what do you think the purpose of marriage is if not to elevate the union to a level of permanence for the sake of maintaining a stable environment for rearing children

Yes, the wording of marriage in our lawbooks is the first, last and only word. Everything else is your opinion and it doesn't matter. There has never been a period in history where marriage was about children. You're welcome to try and make it more palatable for families now as we've recently stopped using children in exchange for livestock.


> So common knowledge is conspiracy. Never change reddit pseudo intellectuals

I mean tinfoil level conspiracy theory. I've been on this website since molten core raiding shut the fuck up.