This is why I am conservative... liberals tend to like government power and influance in our lives, the centraliztion of power. (socialism).
I perfer the freedom to think and feel what I want. I like the freedom not to have to like everyone. I like the freedom of raising my child the way I want and to by the orders of the state.
being conservative to means freedom, that is my defination.
Without getting into definitions, the conservative pay a fair amount of lip service to "getting the government off people's backs" but tend to have significantly more instrusive uses for government than liberals do.
2. Requiring scientists and teachers to provide misinformation. And providing it -- selling it -- in government institutions.
3. No-fly lists. Secret rules regulating who, what, and how flight and other transportation is permitted.
4. Prohibition of an increasing amount of speech and expression, on the so-called "public" airwaves (which are in fact leased to the highest bidders, thus prohibiting even more expression (and I understand the need, but it's still intrusive) and particularly with regard to political dissent, by means of increasing restriction of access to public spaces.
I'm not sure how we got from "attempting to cause changes to society" (or to use one of the definitions from your dictionary, "applied social science") to mind-control and/or thought-police.
I'd call them all means that might be used in the context of social engineering. Upon further review, then, let's just let them lie as examples of horrific things the government is doing, which may in fact be part of an overarching strategy to erode civil liberties and influence or control citizens' thoughts. That latter, of course, being the definition of social engineering.
It is relevant since I see the main pushers of social engineering to be the liberals. As noted by others they have done so in the past. The seem to want to do it again. Saddly for me social engineering can be easly translated to loss of freedom of thought. The most basic right we need to protect.
One of the most basic elements of freedom is the right to choose what you think is right and what you think is wrong. When you take that away and have the government decide this for you then you are no longer a free society. Like it or not you have the right to see conservatives as bad or certain religious groups as wrong, and even to consider certain lifestlyes as wrong, and yes even to dislike a race. What you don't have the right to do is to deny them freedom to live and think what they want and prosper. Social Engineering is just wrong since no one should be trusted with the power of deciding what people should or should think (like or dislike).
That is why I oppose any such actions by the government no matter how "Right" it may feel.
But your suggestion that we change the name of civil marriage to something else in order to make people less likely to object to changes to it is not an attept to engineer social change?
The change I suggest get's the government out of social engineering of marriage. One of the arguements about governments involvement in marriage is based on the property and money issues. But in doing this the government has added a line that marriage will mean "this or that". My solution will address the reasons why the goverment is involve (property, health, money) and the remove the value judgements (social Engineering) of the government.
What is being pushed for 2 person marriage or the other sides 1 man 1 woman both to value judgements (social engineering) that in effect says other forms of sexual couples are wrong. This is expanded by the federal government in to the school system by telling students one form of sex is normal and others are not.
"The change I suggest get's the government out of social engineering of marriage."
Nonetheless, the change you suggest itself constitutes as means of making an intentional change to society and to how our culture thinks about marriage, in order to overcome opposition to proposed changes in law.
In what way is that not attempting to effect a deliberate change in society?
(no subject)
I perfer the freedom to think and feel what I want. I like the freedom not to have to like everyone. I like the freedom of raising my child the way I want and to by the orders of the state.
being conservative to means freedom, that is my defination.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
1. Regulating the bedroom.
2. Requiring scientists and teachers to provide misinformation. And providing it -- selling it -- in government institutions.
3. No-fly lists. Secret rules regulating who, what, and how flight and other transportation is permitted.
4. Prohibition of an increasing amount of speech and expression, on the so-called "public" airwaves (which are in fact leased to the highest bidders, thus prohibiting even more expression (and I understand the need, but it's still intrusive) and particularly with regard to political dissent, by means of increasing restriction of access to public spaces.
Will these do for a starter package?
(no subject)
I would say NOTHING is more intrusive then to tell you "you can think that way... or we will punish you."
I would rather suffer though a death camp then have someone tell me what I can or can not think and many have.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Mea culpa
(no subject)
(no subject)
One of the most basic elements of freedom is the right to choose what you think is right and what you think is wrong. When you take that away and have the government decide this for you then you are no longer a free society. Like it or not you have the right to see conservatives as bad or certain religious groups as wrong, and even to consider certain lifestlyes as wrong, and yes even to dislike a race. What you don't have the right to do is to deny them freedom to live and think what they want and prosper. Social Engineering is just wrong since no one should be trusted with the power of deciding what people should or should think (like or dislike).
That is why I oppose any such actions by the government no matter how "Right" it may feel.
(no subject)
(no subject)
What is being pushed for 2 person marriage or the other sides 1 man 1 woman both to value judgements (social engineering) that in effect says other forms of sexual couples are wrong. This is expanded by the federal government in to the school system by telling students one form of sex is normal and others are not.
(no subject)
Nonetheless, the change you suggest itself constitutes as means of making an intentional change to society and to how our culture thinks about marriage, in order to overcome opposition to proposed changes in law.
In what way is that not attempting to effect a deliberate change in society?