Handlemycandle

Thanks.

The old, "You can't legislate morality and impose your values on everyone else...unless they are values that I want imposed," narrative. Really? In 2021, no less? Almost every law we have is reflective of morality and values. "Don't like abortion, great, don't get one," is as enlightened as, "Don't believe in rape, great, don't rape anyone!" The very, very, very obvious limit on freedom is when the action considered violates someone else's rights. To not be raped in the latter case, or to live in the former. In order to justify the obvious fact that in every abortion, a distinct human being with unique DNA is killed, the left has to act as though it's not really a human being, despite the fact that DNA is the scientific gold standard for identification. That sure sounds to me like an anti-science position. Sure, some have realized the weakness of that position (it was one thing in 1973 before DNA testing and what we know about embryology, it's a horse of a different color now) and moved on to, "Yes, a human being dies, but the mother's right to not have a baby supersedes the unborn's right to live." But that's an absurd position and pretty much everyone sees it, as it's the only situation in which we prioritize the right to something else over life. But back to the original premise. There is no constitutional right to my services as a business owner, either stated or implied, as there is the basic right to life. Yet when confronted with coming down on the side of freedom of association with regard to privately owned businesses discriminating against customers and/or employees, the left screams like a mashed cat. Why is that not a situation of, "You don't believe in serving gays, great, don't serve them. We don't want to impose our values and morality on everyone just because of what we think, and someone else will be glad to take their money for services?" Why is that value worthy to be codified, but protecting defenseless unborn human beings from death is not?

How did y'all say one was to go about reporting posts that break the rules again? When I click on the three dots mentioned on the other thread the only choice I have is "share."

So you admit that you mis-spoke but I'm the one mischaracterizing your post? Can you write anything without contradicting yourself? And that's great that you can cite research. The whole point was that the research that I have actually looked into rather than taking PsyToday's word for it is crap research deliberately designed to get the conclusion desired. I'm on vacation right now and will not take the time to investigate the mechanisms and methodology of all of those links. You should, however, if you're going to post them as proof of what you said you didn't even need research to tell you. Or was that you misspeaking?

In your first sentence you declare that you don't need no stinking science to know what the truth of the reality is, then two sentences later you declare it's the right that is anti-science. It would be laughable if you weren't serious. I get it though. You're pro-science when it suits you and it's not necessary when it doesn't. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's a pretty popular tactic these days, for both sides. Again, works great for those not paying attention.

That's the way it seems to me, too. I don't think much of the Atemyer RWA scale, personally. All the items supposedly reflecting authoritarian tendencies are pro-trait worded and all the items supposedly measuring conventionalism are con-trait worded, which in and of itself is a design flaw IMO. I know there are few critics of it in psychological academia—then again, psychological academia is dominated about 9 to 1 by the political left, so the proportion of those who embrace the ARWA scale vs those who criticize it is exactly what one would expect. The left loves to invent things that supposedly show "scientifically" that the right is this or that. My favorite is the "research" that is supposed to show that people on the right are paranoid. If you look into that what you will find is that everything that the left is afraid of is considered a justified fear, even when it's clearly not, and everything that people on the right are afraid of is considered unjustified. People on the right being afraid that not enforcing the southern border will result in more contraband crossing the border (which we actually have proof is the case) is considered a xenophobically paranoid position, but people on the left being afraid of "assault weapons" despite the fact that more people literally die every year from falling out of bed (yes, that's also a fact) than they do from being shot with an assault rifle despite their being tens of millions of them in circulation...well, that's a justified fear. It's a neat trick and it works if you're not paying attention.

I would agree that it would be a singularly unique situation to have that much smoke and find no fire. But you have to be able to successfully legally prosecute it or due process is violated. We can't have vigilante justice.

Like the poster above, I think you're jousting with windmills here. Or kicking straw men, rather. I don't see anyone disputing the idea that the founding principles of the country only blossom fully in a free society and we've never had a totally free and equitable society. As far as I can tell, however, our society in 2021 is more free and equitable than any society I have ever heard of. Not just in this country, but in the history of the world. Point that out and the people on the left instantly turn into the haters of America. What you are all ignoring, deliberately, I think, is that I named values that used to apply pretty equally to all races that have been undercut and eroded. And if you think the country is better off for the nuclear family having disintegrated, more black children aborted in some places than are actually born, children being born addicted to drugs, the divorce rate over 50%, the poverty rate virtually the same it's been since 1960 despite over 50 years of government programs and 25 TRILLION dollars spent on them, leading the world in the rate of incarceration (yes, I know it has fallen some the past few years, but it was almost 4 and a half times what it was 50 years ago before it started to decline), and by our own DOE statistics almost one fifth of all students who graduate from high school (graduates, not dropouts) are functionally illiterate, then I don't know what to tell you. I kind of think you didn't really pay attention to what I said in the first place and just started reciting a pre-recorded message predicated on the premise that any values a conservative would support have to be based on discrimination. When you say you knew what I was referring to I don't think that was true at all. If you'd like to have a discussion about how a grown man riding down a public street wearing nothing but a diaper and holding a pacifier in his mouth on a Gay Pride Parade float edifies society, or how a man wearing makeup and a dress winning a Miss Nevada contest could possibly not be deeply misogynistic since it affirms that a man is a better women than the actual women in the contest, or how deliberately and intentionally fragmenting social groups and pitting them against each other could possibly create that 2020 campaign buzzword "unity," or a man dressed as a highly sexualized woman reading to small children in a public library is more effective for helping their reading skills than a conservatively and gender appropriately dressed man or woman, I'm willing to have that conversation, but up until now I haven't mentioned any of that, though that's clearly what you thought I was talking about. If you would like to have that conversation, I would start with reminding everyone that none of that is anything new. There are perhaps dozens of examples throughout history of exactly the same sort of cultural phenomena occurring, and as far as I have ever heard, always when that culture had already peaked and was in decline, never when that culture was considered on it's way up. I would start with that because also as far as I have ever heard, all these cultures in which the same dynamic was being played out were filled with people who thought they were terribly sophisticated for "tolerating" such culture. As though what was going on in their society had never happened in the history of the world and they were going to show all of humanity how it was done instead of realizing that they were actually being extremely ignorant, not to mention arrogant, for assuming that this time...THIS time, it was different, and the signs common to cultural demise for all other societies had nothing to do with the same things showing up in theirs.

I disagree, I think that is absolutely an implication of the article. As for the rest, yeah. I said that too.

I'm new here; in fact, this is my first post. The first thing I will say is that I could have sworn when reading the rules for posting that copying and pasting someone else's ideas without original content added was verboten. The second thing I will say is that the author is giving a very biased interpretation here. Basically he is saying that the America that conservatives say they love never existed and the real America is not something conservatives love. Saying that since we had slavery and Jim Crow and needed reform for womens' rights, that perverting or abandoning values (that all races used to share) regarding family, sexuality, responsibility, work ethic, spirituality, means we have a better America, or saying, "Since we didn't live up to the value of equality that means America has historically adhered to no values at all," is ridiculous. In some very important ways America was preferable 60 or 70 years ago. In some very important ways it wasn't. One side wants to romanticize the present and ignore the superior aspects of the past and the other side wants to vice-versa that viewpoint. This is just partisan, tribal bollocks if you ask me.