Hmm, I’ve never seen someone directly link conservatism to the entire concept of society.
I didn’t know considering societal conditions was conservative. But I guess conservative leaders in the US did implement a lot of environmental protections. 🤔
Where does the line actually fall, do you think? I assume I’m over extending a bit here. Making assumptions about what you mean.
Can you write up the logic chain that made you assume I think any particular law is good for society, let alone the one you focused on?
All I was commenting on was the idea that conservatives are the ones crying “we live in a society” and not progressives. I’ve always considered progressive ideas to be more in touch with “we live in a society!” Than conservatives who want to punish and suppress marginalized groups who are, in fact, part of society.
What the hell man?
“Fuck you I got mine” is not considering others and ignores that we live in a society. And that’s what these conservative leaders are all about.
Corporations having no responsibility for the environment and the communities they are part of is a conservative ideal. It does not support society.
I noted the environmental laws because they were exceptions, and look a bit surprising in retrospect. When one learns Nixon passed major environmental laws, they are often surprised.
Oh wait, are you here to say those environmental laws, things like the clean air act are just tools of control over the common man. Clean air and water is oppression?
Progressives say, “We live in a society, so let’s not harm each other.” Conservatives say, “Do what I want, not what you want, or society will crumble.” Take a look at all the morality laws, and try to find even two where the ultimate result isn’t punishment for daring to live in a manner they don’t agree with. And the overwhelming majority of those morality laws are passed by conservatives. Even libertarians complain if someone has the audacity to tax them for the roads they use, especially the ones they use indirectly.
Even when the laws are for good reasons, control is applied. Do you not see how unnecessary regulatory burden can be used as a tool for gatekeeping? As for environmental laws, it’s a bit audacious to talk about Nixon given what Trump has done in the last couple months. Who in their right mind (who isn’t profiting from the sale of coal) wants to keep coal plants that operate at a loss around, whether you believe in climate change or not?
Ok buddy. This conversation is broken. You keep asserting that I think regulation is always good. Like I’m on the side of Trump and Nixon and back doors and banning vpns or whatever the fuck else. You invented that.
Hmm, I’ve never seen someone directly link conservatism to the entire concept of society.
I didn’t know considering societal conditions was conservative. But I guess conservative leaders in the US did implement a lot of environmental protections. 🤔
Where does the line actually fall, do you think? I assume I’m over extending a bit here. Making assumptions about what you mean.
Well, you are taking the excuse given at face value. Do you also think laws for back doors in encryption systems are to protect the children?
Back doors are never safe. Never a good idea. They are always eventually a security hole.
And you think conservatives are genuinely trying to pass these other laws for the good of society and not for control?
Can you write up the logic chain that made you assume I think any particular law is good for society, let alone the one you focused on?
All I was commenting on was the idea that conservatives are the ones crying “we live in a society” and not progressives. I’ve always considered progressive ideas to be more in touch with “we live in a society!” Than conservatives who want to punish and suppress marginalized groups who are, in fact, part of society.
What the hell man?
“Fuck you I got mine” is not considering others and ignores that we live in a society. And that’s what these conservative leaders are all about.
Corporations having no responsibility for the environment and the communities they are part of is a conservative ideal. It does not support society.
I noted the environmental laws because they were exceptions, and look a bit surprising in retrospect. When one learns Nixon passed major environmental laws, they are often surprised.
Oh wait, are you here to say those environmental laws, things like the clean air act are just tools of control over the common man. Clean air and water is oppression?
Progressives say, “We live in a society, so let’s not harm each other.” Conservatives say, “Do what I want, not what you want, or society will crumble.” Take a look at all the morality laws, and try to find even two where the ultimate result isn’t punishment for daring to live in a manner they don’t agree with. And the overwhelming majority of those morality laws are passed by conservatives. Even libertarians complain if someone has the audacity to tax them for the roads they use, especially the ones they use indirectly.
Even when the laws are for good reasons, control is applied. Do you not see how unnecessary regulatory burden can be used as a tool for gatekeeping? As for environmental laws, it’s a bit audacious to talk about Nixon given what Trump has done in the last couple months. Who in their right mind (who isn’t profiting from the sale of coal) wants to keep coal plants that operate at a loss around, whether you believe in climate change or not?
Ok buddy. This conversation is broken. You keep asserting that I think regulation is always good. Like I’m on the side of Trump and Nixon and back doors and banning vpns or whatever the fuck else. You invented that.
No, I keep pointing out how you’re cherry-picking how conservatives are good.
I was being facetious. That’s the excuse these idiots use for every single “new” thing.
Ok, see that makes a lot more sense than whatever the other guy who replied to me is going on about and accusing me of.
Thanks for the reply.