we are better

Define socially conservative. I don't see what could these people have in common.

It's pretty simple. Everything scares, confuses and angers them, so they freak out and beg that someone takes their freedom away. They are basically the biggest pussies in the universe and violently in denial about it.

I don't understand why liberals would voluntarily bend over and take it up the ass from fucking EVERYBODY.

My moral values are superior to yours and, as such, you must live by them as well.

>Hitler
>Osama
>Conservative

>>4414966

> everything.

Except blind obedience and faith, which is why so many of them are christian.

>completely unbiased opinions in this thread
It's possible to explain why you disagree with something without insulting it

>>4414966

>open a thread asking question
>answer yourself on the 3rd post
>mfw

btw, that's a poor definition, and you are wrong.

>>4414983

True, but it seems impossible for social conservatives to listen to those explanations without condemning the opposing viewpoint just for having an opposing viewpoint.

your freedom ends where my feelings begin!

this is how Liberals view freedom of speech, and Conservatives on everything else.

The social conservative- whether atheist or religious, has at his core a rock-solid belief that people are inherently evil, and that if it ever seems otherwise, it is because of strenuous, painstaking effort.

That's the universal for a social conservative, IMHO. What I think is a near-universal is a belief that an imperfect, but well-known system, is preferable to an apparently better system about which little is known.

>>4414970
>implying this is not a sine qua non condition to every political conviction.

The only particular thing about many conservative views is that they are plainly disfunctional to the interests of global elites.

>>4414998
Another way to oversimplify it:
Conservatives think like Hobbes (humanity in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short)
"Progressives" think like Rousseau (humanity in the state of nature is great)

Both categories have complicated feelings towards liberty.

>>4415014

And both are completely wrong.

Human nature is literally a force of nature.

It doesn't do anything except exist, and there are destructive and creative elements involved.

The trick is to cultivate the creative elements and control the destructive elements (and point them where we want them) - which is what classical liberalism did before everyone started making a shit-storm about human rights and blamed the political system of the time for it.

>>4414988
>get butthurt
>accuse people of samefagging

This should be a good post for you to analyze OP.

>>4414989
you mean like leftists who claim everyone must be equal in everything, and that if you disagree you are a racist nazi?

why is john lithgow on there?

>>4415037

Well why shouldn't people be equal in everything unless they prove themselves to be unworthy of being considered equal?

Conservatives are fuck ups who don't accept reality and instead, believe they're rich. And the way to maintain that belief is sucking rich people's cock.

>>4415039

Because he played a psychotic serial killer on Dexter and that's what liberals think all non-liberals are like.

>>4415034
this. fucking spot on. most social conservatives never articulate this- let's face it, most are not capable of understanding it. things like religion and traditional values are methods of channeling human nature towards more successful results in many aspects. basically, methods of control to keep people who are too stupid to know better from destroying themselves.

>>4415034
I like how cretins know everything about human nature and what do to with it.
Also, they don't want to face the fact that Liberalism was a failure, even for the rich.

>>4415053

And some people only see control as a negative thing, rather than as something that can make the destructive elements of society useful.

.

>>4415049
Explain how conservatives aren't psychopaths and ignorant.

>>4415040
people are born with differing abilities. the difference is such that no amount of training/education/whatever can turn someone who has average natural abilities into someone who is in the top 5% at any given activity.

this is anathema to leftists, because it undermines the idea that everyone who is poor/unsuccessful/whatever is a victim of someone who is rich/successful. they confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

>>4415060

I would contest that it wouldn't matter what the political system at the time was.

It's so easy to blame others for what we ourselves are responsible for.

>>4415063
Yeah, control and punishment, especially, physical punishment. They have a long history of effectiveness.

>>4415069
Yeah, someone like you, of course, is superior. That's why you're here.

>>4415069

> it undermines the idea that everyone who is poor/unsuccessful/whatever is a victim of someone who is rich/successful.

That is propoganda that was created during the cold war in direct contradiction to communism, which of course everyone thought the left was teeming with.

You cannot deny that anti-communist rhetoric is still used to this very day as a intellectual weapon against liberalism.

>>4415079

> physical punishment.

Is inherently unnessecary if you just treat people like they aren't monsters and remind them that they are actually capable of being a productive member of society.

And if you're going to complain about the manipulative aspect of that, the only difference is that i'm using words and knowledge where others would be using a whip.

>>>/newpol/

keep it there

>>4415069
Sick people will never be successful, so just let them die. They have no right to impose on the healthy. Same for the poor and disabled.