RE: The Article Every Conservative Should Scoff At

Posted: April 15, 2015 by GeeOhPeeved in Uncategorized

My first post back is actually a reply to a stunningly ignorant piece on “Forward Progressives” that I keep seeing posted on Facebook.  As of the time I’m writing this, the article has been “shared” on Facebook 87,000 times.  I’ll grant that fewer than 100,000 views is hardly a lot, nowadays, but I seem to see it pop up a lot.  Go ahead, click on the link and read it.

Back yet?  Depressed that so many people thought that this ridiculous piece was worth sharing?  Well, I started writing a reply to the most recent poster of this nonsense, and when it started getting lengthy I decided Facebook might not be the best place for a rant this long.

Let’s dive right in, shall we?

Author’s words bolded.
“Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away. He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons”

Except that he has supported outright bans in the past, and maintains that they are Constitutional.  Also, can one of you twits provide a working definition of “assault weapons?”  There doesn’t seem to be any sort of consensus, and most of you are so stunningly ignorant about guns that it is amusing to hear you try.

“Unless you want to make divorce illegal, don’t tell me about same-sex marriage ‘ruining the sanctity of marriage.’ Divorce did that long ago.”

Well, I never argue this point from the position of “sanctity,” but from, I don’t know, an understanding of the word “marriage.”  I’ve said for years now that if this was simply about equality, why not push to end government recognition of marriage, and instead have civil unions for all?  This argument has never been about equality, and the only people who believe it has been are those who have been fooled in to carrying the torch.  Good intentions, however, don’t make you correct.

And who pushed to make no-fault divorce the norm, by the way?  Who has been constantly trying to erode the concept of the nuclear family?  Sorry, but you can’t be both well-informed and intellectually honest with yourself and still hold this view.

Additionally, I’m all for making getting a divorce more difficult.  It turns out that  “I’m bored today” isn’t a good enough reason to renege on an oath you took to stick with your partner for life.  Now, if there’s abuse, infidelity, or some other clear violation of the marriage, by all means file away.  The party at fault should be shafted when it comes to allocating marriage assets, as well.

“Marriage is a Sacred Bond Before God
Alright you religious radicals, I’ll take you on too.”

Has anybody explained to the author that “conservative” and “Christian” are not synonymous terms?  The Left desperately wants to paint any dissent to their views as being, of necessity, religious.  If they succeed in that, they think, then disagreeing with them amounts to arguing in favor of a state religion.  Unfortunately for them, there are plenty of secular conservatives such as myself out there.  Whether or not we make up a substantial portion of the Right, our existence alone negates the argument that the conservative view is an exclusively religious one;  they don’t get to take the ball and go home.  Sorry, libs.

It’s worth noting that the existence of secular conservatives is not the only fault with the author’s apparent view here, though.  Religious people ARE capable of having views that aren’t solely the result of their religions, and can even hold views that CONTRADICT their faiths.  I’m no Biblical scholar, but I don’t think the Bible mentions that 2+2=4, and I don’t know any Christians who would argue the matter.  Looky!  An extra-Biblical belief common to all Christians!

“Same-sex Marriage overall Honestly, I’m exhausted with the same-sex marriage ‘debate.’ There is no debate.”
Holy hell, we agree on something!  Oh, wait, no, not at all.  Here the author has more issues with language, saying that, “The term ‘traditional marriage’ is defined from religious text.”  Swing and a miss, clown shoes.   Until recently, all you needed to do was point to the definition of the word “marriage” in a dictionary and say, “Yeah, that’s what marriage means.”  Recently, though, some dictionaries and such have started including lines referring to same sex marriages.  The TRADITIONAL definition of marriage, then, is that definition that has been used for centuries, irrespective of religion, prior to the current manipulation of the language to suit the fragile emotional states of today’s adult children (liberals).

“Republicans: The Party for Christian Values”

This article feels less like a liberal trying to make a valid argument with conservatives than it does a resentful atheist trying to bash religion.  We get it, you don’t like Christianity.  There are secular conservatives, but I guess we don’t fit your whole “grr, conservatism r bad because relijun!” straw man.  Still, give it a rest, it’s a bit too transparent.

The argument the author seems to be making here, though, is that conservative policies don’t benefit the needy.  Are we safe in assuming that the author believes that liberal policies do?  Or that they do so better than conservative policies?  Well, for the conservative perspective, I’ll simply paraphrase Friedman and say that no other system in the history of the world has been of greater benefit to the common man than has been capitalism.  To rebut the liberal point of view, well, take a trip through Detroit.
“Republicans are for Fiscal Responsibility”

Again with this author’s confusion in terms.  Republican =/= conservative, conservative =/= Republican.  Conservatives are inarguably the more fiscally responsible between the two dominant political ideologies today.  What little good happened under Clinton happened primarily as a result of Reagan’s policies.  Every president since then (yes, including both Bushes) has been left of center.  Tell me, what has the trend been in our national debt for the last twenty five years?  Which political ideology actively works for reform in both taxation and spending?  If your response to this is to name Republican hacks acting counter to what I just said, remember, I’m talking about conservatives.  “Slightly to the right of Carter, politically” might apply to numerous Republicans, but doesn’t describe a single conservative.

“Republicans are the Party of Small Government Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life! Unless that big government regulates:
What language to speak”

I’ve yet to hear anybody argue that everybody should be compelled to speak English, generally.  As a requirement for aliens seeking citizenship, sure.  Every nation reserves the right to set the bar for immigration to their country, though.

“Religion to follow”

Nope, sorry, this is simply nonsense.  I’m an agnostic, and while plenty of people have tried to convince me to convert, not a single one has tried to force me to, nor have they argued that the state should force me to.

“When life is created”

Well, yes, because a working legal determination of both when life begins and ends is necessary.  Can you kill somebody and then just say, “Well, I don’t believe they’re really alive until they turn 18!”  No.  Determining when the separate and unique bit of flesh (a definition that includes that hypothetical 18 year old previously mentioned) qualifies as “alive” is necessary to determine whether or not abortion is the ending of a human life, or simply a contraceptive outpatient procedure.

Telling, though, that the author refers to life being “created,” as that implies a creator.  By his own logic, then, he must end all political activity, as he is clearly blinded by religious zeal.

“Who can marry”

Another nonsense “point.”  If the government is going to recognize marriage, it has to determine who is eligible.  Unless the author is in favor of adults having the “right” to marry developmentally disabled 8 year olds.  No, I’m not saying the author believes that, I’m quite certain the idea would disgust him.  The point is, the fact that there has to be some criteria for marriage eligibility is not, in and of itself, wrong.

“Who can serve in the military”

Yes, of course the government has to decide this.  To continue in the same vein as my previous point, do you want a paraplegic child on the front lines?  No?  What about a serial killer who somehow escaped from prison?  Thought not.  Then there needs to be some determination on who can and cannot join the military.  This is entirely beside the point that military service is not a right;  the recent arguments on general military and specific MOS eligibility are 100% about making sure the military is capable of performing its job.

“Invasive health procedures on women”

Err, no?  The opposite is true:  liberals have been advocating for years that taxpayers should be obligated to pay for elective procedures for women, whether or not such an obligation would violate said taxpayer’s clearly established rights.  The only procedure this might make sense for is abortion, except that it relies on an intentionally falsified version of the conservative position:  conservatives don’t view abortion as an issue over a woman’s choice, but as a matter of protecting a child’s life.  Similarly, murder isn’t banned in order to infringe on your “right” to kill your neighbor, but as a codified protection of your neighbor’s right to live without his neighbor trying to kill him.

“That we have prayer in school”

Who?  Who is arguing that we must pray in school?  I mean, really, it’s hard to see any honest positions the author is trying to take through all these straw men.  I’ve never heard anyone claim that children should be obligated to pray in school.  Now, I’ve heard plenty say that prayer should not be BANNED in school, but that’s a completely different claim.  The author is likely in the “pro-ban” group (it’s the only reasonable explanation for the blatant dishonesty in his characterization of this issue), and so should come out and say what he really feels: “I don’t like your religion, so you should be banned from practicing it where I might be exposed to it.”

One of the core tenets of modern liberalism

“Mosques aren’t built in certain locations”

…Really?  You’re against zoning laws?  In a country with over three hundred million people?  Good luck with that.

Now, if/when such construction is contested purely from an anti-Muslim bias, then sure, those complaints should be ignored and construction should be allowed.  This has nothing to do with conservatism.

“Corporations are people”

Collections of people, yes.  Who makes the decisions in corporations?  People.  Who enjoys the profits of corporations?  People.  Who pays the expenses of corporation (whether its via diminished pay for employees or higher prices for customers)?  People.  You honestly can’t make the author’s argument and be pro-union without being transparently hypocritical.

“The Patriot Act”

Enacted under the left-of-center Bush, continued and strengthened by outright leftist Obama.  Where do you see widespread conservative support for this?  Now, conservatives support some of the individual provisions in the Act, but we aren’t generally all in favor of it.

“Unions don’t have rights”

Nope, not the argument, but burning all these straw men should keep me warm for a while (but oh noes, global warmingz!).  The argument is whether unions have the right to dictate the actions of their employers.  You have every right to unionize.  Your employer should have the right to choose not to keep or hire union employees.  You have the right to strike.  Your employer should have the right to fire you for refusing to do your job.  Nothing in this debate actually restricts the rights of unions, it’s about not letting them restrict the rights of others.

“When alcohol can be sold”

Is this a hot-button issue lately?  Have I missed some huge movement pushing for legalizing the sale of Old English at 5 am?  By all means, remove the time-specific rules on alcohol sales;  at the same time, let’s drastically increase the severity of consequences for alcohol related offenses.  Should balance out nicely.

“The requirement of an ID to vote”

Yup.  Saying that only your citizens are allowed to vote means precisely dick if you don’t ensure that only your citizens are voting.  It’s more of an issue now thanks to the recently developed conviction of the Left that, hey, anybody who wants to vote for them should be allowed to vote!  You know, like illegals, the recently deceased, fictional characters, etc.  Meanwhile, the military is still a fairly conservative organization, so yeah…gotta try to “lose” as many of those ballots in the mail as possible, right?

Hell, I’m all for reasoned debate when it’s there to be had, but it seems that there are fewer and fewer on the left who can count to twelve without taking off their shoes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s