The other group says: "Live and let others live the way they wish to live."
The groups are named "conservatives" and "liberals", respectively.
The core themes of the so-called social conservatives are adherence to religious principles and family values.
How can people, who use this site to indulge in debauchery, claim to be social conservatives, preach moral values, and use morality as the guiding principle in making important decisions such as electing the President?
Sounds hypocritical to me.
How can people, who use this site to indulge in debauchery, claim to be social conservatives, preach moral values, and use morality as the guiding principle in making important decisions such as electing the President?
Sounds hypocritical to me.
Don't you think it is possible for a person to be of the belief that monogamy is merely a "theoretical construct."
And with that, be a complete gentleman/lady, always truthful, respectful, honest in all business/personal transactions, steadfast in his/her convictions, genuinely ambitious/reliable professionally, not a child molester or thief, and on and on and on.
You can pick the list of redeeming attributes but am confident you see my point.
Can't one be a hobbyist and in every other area of his/her life, fit the very mold you speak of?
Of course, it's entirely possible for people who stray away from their moral core to be honest, truthful and respectful. I am cognizant of the distinction between morality and honesty.
What I am talking about is the hypocrisy of people who have an alternative lifestyle of their own, but are strong in ther condemnation of others who do not meet a moral code they believe in.
Never concern yourself with hypocrisy, hypocrisy isn't concerned with you.
Why worry about it?
You do not articulate your thoughts well. Hence, difficult to follow you.
Not without being a total hypocrite that is.
To be a "true" social conservative means to be a deeply religious person at heart. Most social conservatism is rooted in religion as in "My God/The Blble teaches me that marriage is a union between one man and one woman" The Bible also considers adultery to be a big enough sin to list it in the top ten sins, ie "The Ten Commandments"
While I personally believe that everything you just said is true, you and I are looking at it from a secular point of view. It's impossible for a deeply religious person to on the one hand preach that Homosexuality is a sin while on the other rationalizing his own whore mongering as something other than adultery.
For those of us who are NOT "true" social conservatives, your points are very well taken. But when someone quotes scripture to defend their beliefs regarding abortion rights, Gay marriage and other "social" issues, yet not only continues to cheat on his own wife, but makes a lifestyle out of it by becoming a TER member, I am sorry, but that person is most DEFINITELY a hypocrite. There is simply no way to spin it otherwise.
BTW, I consider myself a "good person" and I don't need the "fear of god" to force me to act honorably towards my fellow man/woman. And yes there are many other very "good" people here who happen to either sell sex for a living or purchase the services of those that do, Just like there are good men who happen to like getting pounded in the ass by other men, good women who love to eat pussy and good people of both sexes who have sexual desires the rest of us good "normal people might consider "sick" Unless these sexual activities harm others, are done with people against their will or with children, they don't count on my personal scale of whether or not a person is "good"
...Well written GaG, I find most self stated social conservatives to be the most hypocritical & attempting to use their views to influence & control others.
and a religious puke who still fucks hookers is by definition a hypocrite.
No person attempting to follow a religious path is perfect. Certainly I doubt you are not suggesting that they all stop trying to follow the good morals you agree with. Yes, I'm suggesting you probably disagree with one or more of the moral teachings of many religions and that is the underlying reason for your post.
Barring an exception here and there, every self-proclaimed social conservative is also a self-proclaimed religious person.
Indeed most are religious but that was only my first and simply clarifying point.
What about my second point? You are implying that people attempting to follow a religious path yet fail in one way or another should never use anything related to their religious teaching or understanding in making other life choices when dealing with people.
Let's say a person sets forth a set of goals for himself in life. Maybe none of them have to do with morality or religion. He is successful in most of his goals yet does not meet one of them. Should he then not use what he has learned from the struggles of meeting his other goals to help shape how he lives and deals with people? Or just not use the wisdom gained from the goals that's somehow are related to or might be related to the goal that was not met?
What I don't agree with social conservatives is their insistence on others adhering to their values and moral code.
It is to discredit them so you win.
How can a person's perceived wisdom gained through living (indeed you may not agree with their wisdom) not enter into the decisions they make in other areas of their life when dealing with other people and that includes government. I get it that you don't agree with some of their moral code, as I suspected above. But what you are doing is attempting to shut them up. Why not just admit it? If someone does not agree with you then you'd rather they not have a seat at the political table.
-- Modified on 10/23/2016 2:18:44 PM
I am not in the role of a therapist to HELP them.
If being a hypocrite bothers you and should disqualify one from participating then there is almost no one in politics worthy of your vote.
Let's look at an example that ties into your morality/religious discussion. Hillary Clinton claims to be a practicing Methodist, yet in her "basket of deplorables" accusation she also described them all as "irredeemable". This blanket use of irredeemable goes against the very tenet of Christian theology. Redemption is the very basis of Christianity. HRC has demonstrated a personal practice of her religion in a major hypocritical fashion. Are you outraged? Are you even OK that I pointed it out?
My guess is that you are OK with her hypocrisy. What's that make you? Hmmm?
I regard a person's ability to break away from religious convictions as positive.
Let's look at an example that ties into your morality/religious discussion. Hillary Clinton claims to be a practicing Methodist, yet in her "basket of deplorables" accusation she also described them all as "irredeemable". This blanket use of irredeemable goes against the very tenet of Christian theology. Redemption is the very basis of Christianity. HRC has demonstrated a personal practice of her religion in a major hypocritical fashion. Are you outraged? Are you even OK that I pointed it out?
My guess is that you are OK with her hypocrisy. What's that make you? Hmmm?
That's a total dodge but it does support your own hypocrisy.
You are praising HRC for rejecting a piece of her supposed religious convictions. You've now come full circle and effectively criticized your own original post.
A religious person who rejects the conviction of monogamy should be considered a positive by a monger such as yourself. Yet you don't treat them the same way you treat HRC.
Keep digging if you wish
...the conservatives on this board don't seem all that religious. And they probably define morality in a different way, and logically or illogically, do not think of P4P as immoral. I can see that.
In fact the self-professed biggest manger on this site has over and over said things that lead me to believe that he is one of the most consistently ethical person I know. I don't think anyone would be severely at risk entering into a contractual agreement with him. He would not welch on an agreement or breach a contract, IMO, in any situation. He might refuse to enter into a covenant if he felt it to much of an imposition, but if he did make a deal with you he'd do his best to uphold his end of it.
You probably know who I'm talking about, and you know he leans so far to the right that it's a wonder he doesn't tip over and bang some sense into his head. Lol
I don't know who you are talking about.
In fact the self-professed biggest manger on this site has over and over said things that lead me to believe that he is one of the most consistently ethical person I know. I don't think anyone would be severely at risk entering into a contractual agreement with him. He would not welch on an agreement or breach a contract, IMO, in any situation. He might refuse to enter into a covenant if he felt it to much of an imposition, but if he did make a deal with you he'd do his best to uphold his end of it.
You probably know who I'm talking about, and you know he leans so far to the right that it's a wonder he doesn't tip over and bang some sense into his head. Lol
...conservative. Take the example of GaGambler who has described himself this way:
"I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal."
They believe in smaller government but also in personal freedom, such as a woman's right to choose and fucking hookers.
I am fiscally conservative and very socially liberal. I consider myself moderate on regulations so greed doesn't run wild, somebody would kill all deer off. I am a progressive on science issues that our planet faces, mainly clean water and our food chain being sold off to the Chinese. I am an advocate for chronic pain patients and pushing for legalization of medical marijuana, at the very least decriminalized. With moderate laws necessary how we treat our fellow human beings and where we draw the line. I am against illegal invasions of other countries, and other countries contributions to our elections. I am for gay marriage equality, you can't help who you love. I am against public schools being privatized, but choice still available to those that wish to send their children to Christian or private school, and even homeschool. I want our Social Security that we have paid in to, to be there for us. Some of us got a late start and just beginning to save, and it would be thief for that money to not be there for my generation.
"I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal."
They believe in smaller government but also in personal freedom, such as a woman's right to choose and fucking hookers.
Got it. You are not a republican.
You don't want to be bothered too much by regulations, but considerate enough not to impose your philosophy on others.
"I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal."
They believe in smaller government but also in personal freedom, such as a woman's right to choose and fucking hookers.
Or any kind of Republican for that matter.
I am of the belief that government often does more harm than good and more powerful and centralized our government becomes, ultimately the more harm it will do.
I am considered a righty, but I detest organized religion more than anyone I can think of, from either the left or the right side of the aisle. Although I have found a way to co-exist with religious nut jobs as they are a fact of life in this country, especially where I live and have lived over the last few decades which is right in the heart of the bible belt.
One group says: "Everybody should live the way we do."
The other group says: "Live and let others live the way they wish to live."
The groups are named "conservatives" and "liberals", respectively.
The other group says: "Live and let others live the way they wish to live."
The groups are named "conservatives" and "liberals", respectively.
Today's conservative movement has strayed far afield from Goldwater conservatism of the 60's and Reagan conservatism of the 80's. What you've got now is a mish-mash of a GOP that is about to experience a schism that would make the Catholic church blush. Trump has energized the bottom dwellers of the Republican Party and invigorated the Tea Party eccentrics while completely severing ties with the REAL Republican conservatives.
As for the Liberal movement, I think they have become an abomination morphed into a Chimera of George Soros design, completely and utterly ignoring their own hypocrisy.
One need look no further for an example than this very board, where liberal supporters like Laffy and bigguy30 bully and insult anyone who does not agree with their points of view, calling them "Trump groupies" and silly schoolhouse names. And then there are the conservative supporters like followme or nuguy46 who do the exact same thing as their liberal counterparts, posting bullying and insulting comments yet fail to see there is no difference between "Trumpanzee" or "hillwhorie" (for the record, and in full disclosure, I personally think both terms are accurate, if somewhat low-brow adjectives).
Whether the buck stops with George Soros or Sheldon Adelson, there is no difference in their hypocrisy when it comes to serving the interests of the American people. They aren't. Neither are the candidates.
Viva La Revolučion
Thank you for a balanced and very well articulated post.
The other group says: "Live and let others live the way they wish to live."
The groups are named "conservatives" and "liberals", respectively.
Seems to me that conservative means "We're going to tell you what proper behavior is even though we ourselves do not adhere to those protocols (all animals are created Equal, but some animals are more Equal than others- ty George Orwell) while liberal seems to be "Live and let others live the way they wish to live as long as they agree with us."
Today's conservative movement has strayed far afield from Goldwater conservatism of the 60's and Reagan conservatism of the 80's. What you've got now is a mish-mash of a GOP that is about to experience a schism that would make the Catholic church blush. Trump has energized the bottom dwellers of the Republican Party and invigorated the Tea Party eccentrics while completely severing ties with the REAL Republican conservatives.
As for the Liberal movement, I think they have become an abomination morphed into a Chimera of George Soros design, completely and utterly ignoring their own hypocrisy.
One need look no further for an example than this very board, where liberal supporters like Laffy and bigguy30 bully and insult anyone who does not agree with their points of view, calling them "Trump groupies" and silly schoolhouse names. And then there are the conservative supporters like followme or nuguy46 who do the exact same thing as their liberal counterparts, posting bullying and insulting comments yet fail to see there is no difference between "Trumpanzee" or "hillwhorie" (for the record, and in full disclosure, I personally think both terms are accurate, if somewhat low-brow adjectives).
Whether the buck stops with George Soros or Sheldon Adelson, there is no difference in their hypocrisy when it comes to serving the interests of the American people. They aren't. Neither are the candidates.
Viva La Revolučion!