• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question on Conservative Mindset

theprestige said:
In that case, I think the only person who can meaningfully answer your question is Paul Melanson. I'm not going to waste any time studying his body of work and trying to get inside his head, just to tryto give you an answer to what he might be thinking.

If you're thinking this needs to be a research project, you might as well do the research yourself, since someone has to do it and you're the one who wants an answer.
Click to expand...

As that is what I was asking, an opinion on what he may believe he was losing, I don't understand what the purpose of your posting was. But thank you anyway.
 
theprestige said:
It depends on the specific circumstances, but one thing they lose is the opportunity to not participate in something they don't want to participate in.

If they're required to bake the cake anyway, they also lose the right to decide for themselves whether to bake the cake.

Do you disagree with/not understand either of these propositions?
Click to expand...

If I did not like black people and white people marrying, and I refused to bake a cake for a couple like that, would you still support my right to not participate in something I don't believe in?

What if as an atheist I refused to bake a cake for a Christian? As someone with a college degree I refused to bake for someone without higher education?

Couldn't this justify someone refusing to serve me because I'm disabled and they just don't like cripples?

Yes, ad ridiculum. But where is the line? If the only thing being lost is your freedom to choose whom you sell your product to, then can't that be used to justify racism, sexism, xenophobia...etc...? It could be used as the justification to any discrimination.

What I'm asking is, why is religiously based discrimination okay and other types of discrimination not okay?
 
Magrat said:
If I did not like black people and white people marrying, and I refused to bake a cake for a couple like that, would you still support my right to not participate in something I don't believe in?

What if as an atheist I refused to bake a cake for a Christian? As someone with a college degree I refused to bake for someone without higher education?

Couldn't this justify someone refusing to serve me because I'm disabled and they just don't like cripples?

Yes, ad ridiculum. But where is the line? If the only thing being lost is your freedom to choose whom you sell your product to, then can't that be used to justify racism, sexism, xenophobia...etc...? It could be used as the justification to any discrimination.

What I'm asking is, why is religiously based discrimination okay and other types of discrimination not okay?
Click to expand...

These are all important questions that we should be asking ourselves and each other, as part of an ongoing debate about what kind of society we want to share. But they are not quite what you were asking.

Before we start debating the merit of various trade-offs, I want to make sure we at least have basic agreement on the point that something is indeed lost when we ask someone to act against their moral code.

I mean, I don't feel like I can have a productive conversation with you about whether that loss is worth the corresponding gain to society, if you're not yet clear that there's any loss in the first place.

If your "what is lost?" was actually intended to mean "is the loss worth it?", then you may need to think your entire communication strategy before proceeding.
 
Magrat said:
As that is what I was asking, an opinion on what he may believe he was losing, I don't understand what the purpose of your posting was. But thank you anyway.
Click to expand...
The purpose of my posting was to advocate for the idea that nobody here is in a position to have an informed opinion about what he may believe he was losing.
 
Magrat said:
If you look for bias, you shall find it.

Can you explain to me how baking a cake for someone infringes on your rights? Does God dock you a Good Boy Point? It makes legitimately zero sense to me... As an atheist, I would happily take money from a christian couple that was getting married. Baking a cake for which you are paid does not endorse anything or support anything. If anything, refusing to provide services for a large part of the population will just ruin your business.

Please, can you explain how it infringes on your rights to bake a cake? what exactly are you losing by making money from a customer?

I can even kinda see if it required participation in the actual wedding but...baking a cake?? If I am quite honest it just makes the bakery sound dead ass petty.
Click to expand...

As a rule, folks have the right not to do things they do not want to. Compelling someone to sell a cake they don't want to sell in order to sell cakes at all, well that infringes on their rights. Sure, it makes the baker seem a bit petty but they have the right to do that as well. Its hard to come up with a parallel that would apply to a liberal atheist baker on account of there always being special ways to plead the case. You could try saying, would you want to bake a NAZI wedding cake and should you be forced to in order to bake at all? Maybe, should you be compelled to bake a cake that had a specifically anti-gay marriage message for a fundies wedding?

All of that is a digression. As I noted, the conservative mind set is, "change is suspect" therefore I will come up with some justification for not changing. There is strong evidence that the default for decision making is to make a decision for reasons we don't really understand and then look for justification after the fact. This is true of just about everyone; conservative, liberal or what ever other sort of mindset you can think of.
 
ahhell said:
As a rule, folks have the right not to do things they do not want to. Compelling someone to sell a cake they don't want to sell in order to sell cakes at all, well that infringes on their rights. Sure, it makes the baker seem a bit petty but they have the right to do that as well. Its hard to come up with a parallel that would apply to a liberal atheist baker on account of there always being special ways to plead the case. You could try saying, would you want to bake a NAZI wedding cake and should you be forced to in order to bake at all? Maybe, should you be compelled to bake a cake that had a specifically anti-gay marriage message for a fundies wedding?
Click to expand...

Yep it is as bad as having to have blacks in your hotel, when you know you are going to have to burn all the sheets to get the stink out. Yet the government says you have to to have a hotel at all. That is totally outrageous to all right thinking conservatives.
 
If we equate racism with LGBTQ-phobia, and it seems many of us are willing to do so, then is what is lost our control over our own hate? Idk, im throwing out ideas. Again, I'm not arguing whether someone should be forced to do anything or etc. Im asking for opinions on what is actually/factually happening.

Yes, I would bake a cake for nazis. of course i would. being hateful to hateful people just makes more hate. I would not participate in a nazi cross burning or whatever nazis do, but I would participate in a nazi wedding as a wedding organizer or other paid position. Because selling a service to someone doesn't endorse anything other than my desire to run a business.
 
theprestige said:
More generally, probably a lot of similar stuff to what Magrat would believe she was losing, if she were to accept money to do something she believed was morally or ethically wrong.
Click to expand...

Baking a cake is never ethically or morally wrong. :thumbsup:

eta adding *almost* before never because I know this forum and SOMEONE will come up with a scenario in which cake is wrong!!
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
As a rule, folks have the right not to do things they do not want to. Compelling someone to sell a cake they don't want to sell in order to sell cakes at all, well that infringes on their rights. Sure, it makes the baker seem a bit petty but they have the right to do that as well. Its hard to come up with a parallel that would apply to a liberal atheist baker on account of there always being special ways to plead the case. You could try saying, would you want to bake a NAZI wedding cake and should you be forced to in order to bake at all? Maybe, should you be compelled to bake a cake that had a specifically anti-gay marriage message for a fundies wedding?
Click to expand...

Let me put this in a different context. Suppose you are selling something. You agree to sell it for a certain price but then have second thoughts and want backsies.
The other party does not have to agree and can legally force you to deliver.

Of course, that doesn't infringe on your rights. You bartered your rights away and doing that - contracting - is a right, too.

Now suppose you want to sell something and shout to a group: "I'm selling this for X dollars!" Someone shouts back: "Accepted."
But when that guy steps out of the group you realize that it's a guy you hate. You want backsies. The question now is whether you bound yourself when you shouted the offer or not.
In reality, either may be true depending on various details. It's a technical matter. No one would seriously argue that one possible solution infringes on anyone's rights.

So let's look at the baker. If he is forced to make the cake, then that means that he bound himself by offering his service to the public. If that were the legal status quo, it would not seem like an obvious infringement on anyone's rights.


But let's try yet another way of looking at it. Suppose the baker does not own his bakery but is employed by a chain. That guy is going to get in trouble if he refuses paying customers. Does that infringe on his rights?

Actually, I do see the point here. Being self-employed is nice. It's nice being your own boss. It's freedom, right?
So maybe we really should do something about this. Maybe change the tax code to make big chains like Starbucks or Pizza Hut impossible in favor of independent, single establishments? Whatever the case, not being able to refuse a customer is certainly a tiny thing in comparison.


What if nazi wanted a cake? Let's up it a notch. A nazi pedophile who raped the baker and his kids comes in a and wants a cake. Can the baker's employer force him to serve that customer?

IDK but there are certainly things that an employee can't be made to do. There are situations where you could get out of a contract based on exceptional hardship. I think here we are close to the issue. Are gay weddings so terrible that a person should not have to acknowledge their existence?
That's a question of societal values; not of rights.

I can think of a rights issue in regards to this. Suppose it's the only bakery in town. Getting a cake from out of town would cost extra. In that case the baker has a position of economic power and can effectively levy a fine on gay wedding cakes.
 
Magrat said:
If we equate racism with LGBTQ-phobia, and it seems many of us are willing to do so, then is what is lost our control over our own hate? Idk, im throwing out ideas. Again, I'm not arguing whether someone should be forced to do anything or etc. Im asking for opinions on what is actually/factually happening.
Click to expand...

To get back to what I said earlier. I think it's a heritage of the anti-civil rights movement.
Southern whites certainly lost something as a result of civil rights. During seggregation whites got preferential treatment. They got the good seats on the bus, etc...
I think that's where the rhetoric of losing something comes from.
 
My Right Wing friend isn't lamenting new rights for others imposing on his own, but "More choices individuals will be burdened with as they grow up."
He wants to see this thing called "Rights" minimized to keep life simple as it was in his 50's childhood. Rights bring complications, he thinks. He says Whites (including himself) are "tired of having to bend backward for Blacks."
He has stated that he doesn't believe in Equality because the "inferior races" can't function equally. His future utopia is one in which the Blacks, Browns, and others have their own planets, while his is all white as his hometown nearly was.

He didn't vote for Trump, but he applauds every bigoted thing Trump and his Party does.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
To get back to what I said earlier. I think it's a heritage of the anti-civil rights movement.
Southern whites certainly lost something as a result of civil rights. During seggregation whites got preferential treatment. They got the good seats on the bus, etc...
I think that's where the rhetoric of losing something comes from.
Click to expand...

Now that does make sense. Along with the zero sum mentality that was mentioned earlier.

Apathia said:
My Right Wing friend isn't lamenting new rights for others imposing on his own, but "More choices individuals will be burdened with as they grow up."
He wants to see this thing called "Rights" minimized to keep life simple as it was in his 50's childhood. Rights bring complications, he thinks. He says Whites (including himself) are "tired of having to bend backward for Blacks."
He has stated that he doesn't believe in Equality because the "inferior races" can't function equally. His future utopia is one in which the Blacks, Browns, and others have their own planets, while his is all white as his hometown nearly was.

He didn't vote for Trump, but he applauds every bigoted thing Trump and his Party does.
Click to expand...

You're friends with my dad?! No wait, my dad did vote for the Oompa Loompa.

Maybe because I grew up in the 80s, maybe because were I am from is 99% white (because nobody who had another option would move here), maybe because I have ways spend most of my time reading and not watching the news etc... etc... I really cannot understand that. I mean...well, I guess I probably don't have to explain it. The gap between the boomers and their children is a very, very large one. (although my husband is technically a boomer, he doesn't have that racist stereotype mentality that my parents have)
 
Loss Leader said:
I think that for conservatives, the thing they think they're being deprived of is the past. They just want things to go back to the way they were. Heck, I'm 48 and there are times when I would kill to spend a week being 10 again.

The problem with nostalgia is that it's usually wrong. Things were never the way they're remembered. And even back then (whener "then" was), people bemoaned the fact that things weren't the same as they were before.

Conservatism, to me, seems like a very sad, very lonely way to live. The predominant feeling is one of loss (or fear of loss) all the time.

But, then, I'm a progressive, so I really don't know what they're thinking.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have a friend who looks back to his Milford, MA childhood in which there was only one color, one religion, one ethnicity. It was a golden time during which you didn't have to explain or question anything.

When he was younger he did break out of the bubble a bit. His second marriage was to a Japanese woman. However he didn't have the capacity or energy to work through cultural differences, so the marriage went south.

He laments that the Culture War will be lost, His consolation is that at his age, he won't be around to see the nation overrun by Browns and Muslims.
 
Magrat said:
The gap between the boomers and their children is a very, very large one. (although my husband is technically a boomer, he doesn't have that racist stereotype mentality that my parents have)
Click to expand...


Baby Boomers are more frequently known as the children of the civil rights movement. That's way too broad a brush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom