Do liberal parents make conservative kids and conservative parents make liberal kids?
My parents were 1950s middle class suburban conservative sitcom characters (in fact I think my childhood might have occurred in monochrome). I grew up to become a militant socialist (and really started feeling that way probably right around the age of five) because I found the self-centric, psychopathic narcissistic perversity of "self-reliance" dementia so self-evidently false, so childish, so unsophisticated and wilfully ignorant. My parents informed me that at the stroke of midnight on my eighteenth birthday, our family bonds severed under compulsion of law and I found the whole proposition so revolting, I opted out of the program early mostly just to avoid the celebratory ceremony of my expulsion from the family and severance of our prior relationship. My parents gave me nothing but a scorched and depleted earth then told me, "You can do anything you want and have anything you want if you just apply yourself", and if I don't graduate college and become 'self-reliant', that will prove I never deserved any better because I am too lazy and worthless (because I want everything "handed to me on a silver platter"). My now 30 year old son moved out of my house at the age of 22 against my wishes. My 20 year old daughter is currently preparing for classes in community college and if I have my way, she will graduate but she will never have a 'job' in her lifetime and she will never live anywhere but in my home free of charge. HOWEVER, all of your anecdotal examples (and even moreso, me) are the exception, not the rule. The majority of all people are essentially duplications of their parents (really now, why does anybody vote republican? Because that's what their parents did. It's the only reason anybody ever votes republican). I know at least a dozen people intimately with precisely the same family history as mine that all honor their parents, vote republican and still believe without question all the mythological hogwash about "self-reliance", "fierce rugged individualism" and "applying" themselves. I definitely appreciate your anecdotes and do not doubt their authenticity for a moment. Your only error is that you have not discovered a pattern that predicts outcome with any accuracy but only an explanation for anomaly after the fact. Not bad work anyway, you just need to tweek your conclusion slightly.
What are some examples of structural violence?
Structural violence is the system of discrimination inbuilt in a social structure/social institution. Examples are sexism, ageism, racism, classism, etcSexismIt is a system of discrimination, wherein people are discriminated on the basis of their sex. Gender based discrimination can also be included under this.Every sex and every gender is discriminated in one or other way.There are three sexes and 50 plus genders with which people identify themselves. Each group faces a unique set of violence. Violence here means psychological and physical disabilities inflicted on them.2. AgeismIt is a system of discrimination, wherein people are discriminated against based on their age.Children- Young Adult- Old Adult. People in each on these groups face different types of violence.Children are not allowed to interfere in elder’s conversations and to share their opinions. It is there in many societies.In many places, especially in India, elders are respected within home (in majority cases) but ill treated outside home. Most of the government services and amenities are not elder friendly.Young adults are expected to take care of both children and elders. It has been considered as their duty.In conservative societies like India, aged people are not even allowed to date or marry some other person after their spouse’s demise.3. CasteismCaste system is a social institution, present only in India. The varna system divides people into 5 groups and provides varying levels of privilleges to each group. Avarna is the 5 th group, which occupies the lowest position in the varna system.People of Avarna are also called as untouchables. Various inhumane disabilities are inflicted on this group. They are not even allowed to enjoy basic human rights.4. RacismRace is not a social institution. Yet institutionalized discrimination is inflicted upon people based on their race.In India, people from Northeastern states are bullied more than people from any other state/region. They belong to Mongoloid race. They are bullied for not having so called ‘Indian features’. This is a clear racial discrimination.Also, there is a huge divide between North and South India, mainly because of people’s skin color. North Indians are comparatively fairer than south Indians. There is always a friction between North and South, because of skin color.The well known example for racial discrimination is the USA. In no other part of the world, the fight against racism had been so difficult as in USA.
So what's the difference between fundamentalist, conservative, moderate, and liberal Christians?
Fundamentalist has two connotations Originally, a fundamentalist Christian was someone who adhered to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity (the Divine Authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Vicarious Sacrifice of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ etc.) During the Iran hostage crisis (1979-1981), the western media, in an attempt to describe the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini, began to use the phrase "the fundamentalist version of Islam" (even though no such distinction exists in Islam). That is when the connotation of violence and extremism entered into the definition of fundamentalism. So the term is often misused to negatively misrepresent Christians who are 'fundamentalist' according to the original definition, rather than the modern connotation. Conservative and liberal are ideological designations. Social conservatism generally means being reluctant to change without a legitimate, or thoughtful reason; with a focus on what's best for society. A conservative Christian is therefore less inclined to compromise the doctrines of their faith. Social liberalism generally means wanting to change; with a focus on personal liberty (freedom). The term liberal Christian usually refers to those who think the church should change some of it's doctrines to suit societal expectations. The term moderate Christian tends to be a non-Christian designation of liberal Christians who are prepared to negotiate their beliefs - which moderates the religious debate between Christian and secular beliefs. It is also used as a disingenuous rhetorical measure, to imply that all conservative Christians are extreme (i.e. if they are not moderate).
Don't the terms "conservative" and "liberal" explain enough who the wiser party is?
Conservative's definition is "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." But, clearly, this country needs change. The economy is slipping, there's more violence and illegal activity than ever before, and the troops being sent to Iraq continuously is absurd. There's no progress. And when I think of a conservative, I picture someone who is inclined not to speak openly, and someone who is more conformed to society. However, liberal means "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties," or "favorable to progress." Doesn't this say enough? Liberals always want change and to better everything the best they can. They favor the people. They speak out, and conservatives just don't. Conservatives rarely favor the rights of the people over the rights of the state. I'm saying liberals make more sense.
What do conservatives hate about the Great Society?
The Great Society by LBJ brought the unemployement rate from 22.2% to 12% in 4 years, which is the greatest one-time reduction in poverty in American History. I am currently trying to find my place in political views I used to have a libertarian- conservative viewpoint, but lately I have been leaning liberal.
Structural Functional Theories and Conflict Theories?
Structural functional theories see the structures like the state, the laws that govern us, the religious doctrines as having a function in society. Without them, the society will not move or function. It's conservative because the theories hold that we need these functions. Take for example, Durkheim's opinion that crime is essential as a function of society. Why? Because by criminalising a deviant, we reinforce our social norms, and strengthen it. Therefore, crime is necessary for society to maintain the societal structure. As for conflict theories, these are radical. Conflict theories identify a conflict, and seek a resolution. Take for example, Marxism. Marxist theory highlights alienation. The worker is alienated from his tools, his product. Marx says that under Capitalism, the proletarian (laborer) is repressed, and cannot achieve his full human potential. The worker is alienated from himself. He is a machine that is forced to work because he needs the money to survive. See the conflict? The conflict happens between the proletarian and his bourgeois master. What does Marx suggest? Revolution. Well you could look at radical feminism as well.
Why do you disagree with conservatism generally?
I disagree with conservatism in the US because, in most important respects, it fails to be truly “conservative,” in any sense of the word.In terms of behavior, many US consernatives are anything but. They are loud, they shout down those they disagree with, they make conservatism so important in their lives that it becomes more of a lifestyle than a set of political beliefs. Granted, this can happen on both sides of the political spectrum, but frequently conservatives refer to themselves as though they are some sort of chosen people.Economically and environmentally conservatives are anything but conservation-minded. It seems odd to me that a political movement for which religion has become an increasingly central part does not act humbly toward the natural world created for us. Frequently, they seek instantaneous economic growth even at the cost of environment, or the livelihoods of disadvantaged people. Conservative politicians are largely responsible for racking up tremendous amounts of debt with military spending and tax cuts as well, which is not exactly aimed at financial conservation.Conservative is supposed to mean “in opposition to change,” yet many US conservatives seek to change quite a great deal about how the government has worked for the past century or longer. Regulation of private industry by the state was a necessary step forward which was taken in the lare 19th/early 20th centuries in the US. It has worked fine, yet many conservatives seek to undo that step forward, amongst other things. It's highly perplexing to me.In a general sense, I think a movement largely based on looking to make the future more like an idealized past is doomed to failure and stagnancy from the outset. Conservatism tends to view the past too uncritically, and to cling to the past in all the least important ways.I think conservatism as a movement COULD be an excellent and valuable contributor to American politics, just not in its present state which is akin to manic insanity. If conservatives can, with intellectual honesty, recognize and rectify the absurdity of their representing political party it could heal a wide partisan gulf and ultimately benefit people of all political orientations. The Democrats need a kick in the pants as well, don't get me wrong, but we cannot even begin a healing process if we can't agree about the reality we live in, which the GOP propaganda machine is largely responsible for distorting.