Worst extremist views?

[ilikeverin]

See the 'Best extremist views?' thread for info on what the question is asking...

I'd have to say social conservative.

[migrendel]

I must say I'm pained the most by social conservatives. At least economic conservatives value independence over the nosey parkerism we see espoused by social conservatives.

[PBrunsel]

Social Liberalism.

[Nym90]

Economic conservative.

[Huckleberry Finn]

A tough choice. Can't really say about America, but in Finland I dislike both social and economic Left, but consider social Left worse.

[12th Doctor]

Extremeist Social Liberals

[opebo]

Even though I consider laissez faire economics the best extreme, I voted for social conservatism as the worst.  Economic leftists are pretty bad, but at least they think they're preventing misery.  Social leftists (in my view meddling  social 'conservatives' are on the anti-freedom left) are much worse, as they're just plain nosy and oppressive for no reason whatsoever.  Just busy bodies.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Economic Liberalism is the worst

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

[Gustaf]

I was this close to voting social conservative, then started thinking about economical liberals...(those are the 2 choices for me really). I postponed my vote, then read Opebo's post and figured, if HE votes social conservative over economic liberal, then so must I!

[Akno21]

Social Conservatives- they are trying to take away freedom in the name of their religion or morals.

[TheWildCard]

Economic Liberalism for myself.

[bullmoose88]

Social conservativism.

[bejkuy]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

From what?

Having sex with minors?
Taking "Under God" out of the pledge?
From making America into New Amsterdam?
Being able to kill the useless aged and unborn?
Unregulated prostitution?
The destruction of the nuclear family?

In a recent study on charitable giving, Mississippi  ranked #1 in charitable giving.  Dang, those religious conservatives!



 

[Gustaf]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

From what?

Having sex with minors?
Taking "Under God" out of the pledge?
From making America into New Amsterdam?
Being able to kill the useless aged and unborn?
Unregulated prostitution?
The destruction of the nuclear family?

In a recent study on charitable giving, Mississippi  ranked #1 in charitable giving.  Dang, those religious conservatives!



 

Heh...both of you calm down... You're gonna start a war over values.

[opebo]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

From what?

Having sex with minors?
Taking "Under God" out of the pledge?
From making America into New Amsterdam?
Being able to kill the useless aged and unborn?
Unregulated prostitution?
The destruction of the nuclear family?

Yes.

[bejkuy]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

From what?

Having sex with minors?
Taking "Under God" out of the pledge?
From making America into New Amsterdam?
Being able to kill the useless aged and unborn?
Unregulated prostitution?
The destruction of the nuclear family?

Yes.

At least we understand eachother.

Consider the following Opebo:

Broken families produce out of proportionate amounts of broken children who committ out of proportionate amounts of crime and consume out or proportionate government services.

It is in your best interests, as a wealthy taxpayer, to live in an America with strong families.

I don't make enough money for it to have much effect on me.  It's not a conservative or liberal issue for me.  I hate to see people suffer.

People suffer when:

-families break up.
-children are molested.
-fathers blow the rent check on gambling.
-they become addicted to drugs.

[opebo]

Consider the following Opebo:

Broken families produce out of proportionate amounts of broken children who committ out of proportionate amounts of crime and consume out or proportionate government services.

It is in your best interests, as a wealthy taxpayer, to live in an America with strong families.

I don't make enough money for it to have much effect on me.  It's not a conservative or liberal issue for me.  I hate to see people suffer.

People suffer when:

-families break up.
-children are molested.
-fathers blow the rent check on gambling.
-they become addicted to drugs.

Actually I'm all for stable families, but I fail to see what government regulation or religion/social conservatism has to do with it.  Forming and maintaining a family is a personal choice.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Amen, Opebo!

[English]

Tough Choice, but probably Social Conservatism.
I'm thinking Theocracy, what a nightmare that would be?

[migrendel]

I must say, bejkuy, that the nuclear family has been intensely problematic. It has been a huge factor in the reinforcement of capitalism, patriarchy, and heterosexual dominance. It has historically caused a gyno-thanatic power structure, and to this day places no value on the ideas and hopes of children.

I rue for the fact that wives still feel obligated to have sex with their husbands. I mourn the emphasis on monogamy which often stifles pleasurable sex. I am saddened by how the views and concerns of children are often silenced by parents who believe in forcing them into acquiescence in the names of "discipline" and "respect". I am pained by how children cannot express themselves sexually, with privacy and autonomy, because I knew how difficult my life might have been if I hadn't decided to face my sexuality at a young age and start living. I cannot abide by how materialism, and not pure love, is how a family believes it can express its affection. For those reasons, and for all the suffering they have and will continue to cause, the changes our society must make are not just legal, but also educational, religious, and familial.

[TeePee4Prez]

I must say, bejkuy, that the nuclear family has been intensely problematic. It has been a huge factor in the reinforcement of capitalism, patriarchy, and heterosexual dominance. It has historically caused a gyno-thanatic power structure, and to this day places no value on the ideas and hopes of children.

I rue for the fact that wives still feel obligated to have sex with their husbands. I mourn the emphasis on monogamy which often stifles pleasurable sex. I am saddened by how the views and concerns of children are often silenced by parents who believe in forcing them into acquiescence in the names of "discipline" and "respect". I am pained by how children cannot express themselves sexually, with privacy and autonomy, because I knew how difficult my life might have been if I hadn't decided to face my sexuality at a young age and start living. I cannot abide by how materialism, and not pure love, is how a family believes it can express its affection. For those reasons, and for all the suffering they have and will continue to cause, the changes our society must make are not just legal, but also educational, religious, and familial.

I hate to burst your bubble, but how is the nuclear family a huge factor in the reinforcement of capitalism and heterosexual dominance?  I don't totally disagree with you, but there are a lot of people that want to settle down and have families.  The two parent structute I feel is still best for raising children in MOST cases, but not all.  However, I do not feel the likes of Rick Santorum can force this down our throats.  Some people want to stay single bachelors and bachelorettes.  Some are homosexual.  Our government in no way shape or form should force their values on us.  Our tax structure is very unfair to singles like myself.  

I think going to an all boys Catholic high school has "effed" me up in more ways than none, I'll admit.  When I got to co-ed college, I did not know how to act.  I feel people wanting to force this single sex issue are dead wrong.    

I think repressive parents are the worst.  I'm disturbed as to how parents were more worried about Janet Jackson's bare breasts than sending troops off to die for greed.  Hey this is America!  <sarcasm>  You are dead on about the emphasis on monogamy.  This is not post-WWII industrialism where people married their high school sweetheart at 18 or 19 and had litters of kids.  Many people, especially devout Catholics, fail to fully realize this.  People like to stay single and more or less screw around.  At this point I feel it is time for the last few remaining Catholic high schools especially the single sex ones to be demolished.  That way the parents would then put immense pressure for cities to improve
some of their failing schools.

[English]

Complete economic freedom is scary too. I don't trust corporations whatsoever.

[ilikeverin]

I must say, bejkuy, that the nuclear family has been intensely problematic. It has been a huge factor in the reinforcement of capitalism, patriarchy, and heterosexual dominance. It has historically caused a gyno-thanatic power structure, and to this day places no value on the ideas and hopes of children.

I've had no problems with my nuclear family... and we even have the stereotypical 2 parents and 2 kids (although my brother and I are both male, so that spoils it somewhat ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes you must stilfle that in the face of STDs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in my family

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you mean expressing your homosexuality, I'm fine with that... but if you mean having sex, I still disagree with you on that  After all, I'm guessing the majority of kids, even with the freaky videos last year about STDs and the like, would still not wear condoms.  Meh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no clue what you're talking about...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think nuclear families are just fine

Actually, when I grow up, I want to be a member of a nuclear family  But that's just me, and it wouldn't necissarily have me being the main money-getter in the house

[Citizen James]

Social conservatives, they are holding us back.  

From what?

Having sex with minors?
Taking "Under God" out of the pledge?
From making America into New Amsterdam?
Being able to kill the useless aged and unborn?
Unregulated prostitution?
The destruction of the nuclear family?

In a recent study on charitable giving, Mississippi  ranked #1 in charitable giving.  Dang, those religious conservatives!

Well, that would be the extreme social liberals.   As opposed to the extreme social conservitives who would likely be the other extreme.

No mixed race mariages.
No fornication.
Missionary position only
No birth control.
Government control over who is and is not allowed to reproduce - all others are required to remain abstinent or face jail time.

I know, all these are extreme, but so are your examples.  We're talking extremists after all.

I'd say the two social options are the worst.  Compared to those lazzis fare and planned economies don't seem quite as bad.