|
Post by nikita on Sept 4, 2010 18:35:43 GMT -5
How do so many conservative Christians come down on the side of a policy that is for all intents and purposes the survival of the fittest? Actually, it's more survival of the *richest* That's how it plays out, and I am not surprised by hearing these views spouted by wealthy privileged people. But what is so mystifying is that they are now being parroted by people on the other end of the 'richest' spectrum, people who are fundamentally opposed to any help from government even though they and theirs may sincerely need the help. And they are very mean spirited about it. As Mactavist says, there's a lot of spiteful animosity out there right now. As for the term 'nanny state', it is used to describe certain state interventions, not all of which are welfare related. For instance when people try to lobby the government to outlaw certain foods or preparation methods in the name of reducing obesity. That may be a lofty goal to have, but to many having the state step in and tell us what is legal to eat (in restaurants) is way more intrusive than we like our government to get. It's a term that is used broadly is what I am saying. I am sorry if people are using that term to denigrate or abuse you where you live.
|
|
|
Post by macktivist on Sept 4, 2010 21:23:39 GMT -5
Well I've noticed that people on the "Christian" right who are against "nanny states" where people are helped by the government, are strangely okay with the government legislating morals like what kinds of sex people can have and who they can love... Talking out of both sides of their mouths much?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 4, 2010 22:04:02 GMT -5
Well I've noticed that people on the "Christian" right who are against "nanny states" where people are helped by the government, are strangely okay with the government legislating morals like what kinds of sex people can have and who they can love... Talking out of both sides of their mouths much? Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Sept 5, 2010 3:25:17 GMT -5
Well I've noticed that people on the "Christian" right who are against "nanny states" where people are helped by the government, are strangely okay with the government legislating morals like what kinds of sex people can have and who they can love... Talking out of both sides of their mouths much? Definitely. Sorry my use of the term was offensive to you. I'm not for the government legislating more than necessary, and I think the examples I gave are good ones. I'm not a "right wing Christian", just a concerned woman, wife and mother who is wondering why the people of the country where she lives are ok with the government dictating into their lives a little bit more as time goes by. You're right that the government shouldn't dictate how consenting ADULTS are to lead their sexual lives, but they also shouldn't be overly protective of those who they used to persecute. Tolerance is not support, and those who don't believe certain practices are right ought not to be forced to accept them as right and have to support them. Tolerance means you have to put up with stuff you don't like or agree with. If both sides are respectful of each other, we can live in tolerance, but if one side wants the other to be supportive or to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves, you don't have tolerance any more.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Sept 5, 2010 3:38:34 GMT -5
I was just pointing out that "nanny state" is a demonizing, propaganda term where I live for "any government that prioritizes human beings". As some one who has been on welfare, and knows many people who rely on welfare to survive, I've had "nanny state" comments thrown in my face as an insult. This isn't about "PC", this is about the very real stigma against poor people in the US, where we are seen as pathetic children if we rely on or support a system with strong public services. I can't think of a way in which saying "nanny state" is NOT condescending or spiteful, honestly. Again, I'm sorry I used the term. I feel your pain because we have relied on unemployment money and it doesn't feel good at all. On the other hand, when we thought we were on our feet and coud stop receiving it, we found ourselves without medical insurance because we couldn't always afford the payments. Shortly after that, we found that we were breaking the law by not having insurance. My husband tried to renew our policy, but they were fining us for the months we hadn't been insured ( lots of money!) We were only able to get medical insurance again by going back to being temporarily unemployed. Thank goodness, because we are now being warned that CPS will be informed if we don't get our kids to the doctor before x date (soon).
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Sept 7, 2010 15:00:17 GMT -5
Angie: I think the thing that bothers me most about the autism conspiracy theory (besides being bad science) is this idea that it's worse to have a child on the autism spectrum than to have your child get paralyzed from polio or die from whooping cough. THIS. This is also part of why most adult autistics find the vaccine-autism theory abhorrent. The science also does not clearly support the idea that there is an "autism epidemic"--the reality is that most forms of the condition were not widely recognized until the last five to ten years. Autism is hereditary--in my experience, many, if not most of the people being diagnosed now have family with some autistic traits.
|
|
|
Post by synesthesia on Sept 20, 2010 13:44:34 GMT -5
Well I've noticed that people on the "Christian" right who are against "nanny states" where people are helped by the government, are strangely okay with the government legislating morals like what kinds of sex people can have and who they can love... Talking out of both sides of their mouths much? That does tend to bug me deeply... Also the whole autism=vaccines thing gets in the way of really understanding autism, I think. It makes people harp on the wrong thing instead of making room for acceptance and accommodation.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Sept 20, 2010 21:45:06 GMT -5
Also the whole autism=vaccines thing gets in the way of really understanding autism, I think. It makes people harp on the wrong thing instead of making room for acceptance and accommodation. Exactly.
|
|