toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?

[Newman]

Because they are perverted and deviant. :dunce::duh:

Wow, you're dumb.

How is this not common sense? Deviant and perverted behavior should not be legal.

But you haven't said why yet. Which is what the question was. Butt face.

The effect such behavior has on society is detrimental to all, to the point that said behavior should not be allowed, let alone allowed to run rampant.

Some guy in the woods in Alaska smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy around the corner from my house smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy standing right in front of me, exhaling the smoke from his doobie right in my face would be a little annoying and stinky, but it would not affect the way I live my life, you sniveling buttinski.

So does perverted and deviant behavior. It infringes on our right to be free from perversion and deviance.

Which is why you have the right to leave this country and form one somewhere else (may I suggest the moon?) where you, aSeattleConserv and all your ilk can make all the stupid laws you want to, controlling each other's perfect behavior and outlawing the non-existent sin in each other's life. Have fun! :wave2:

And if anyone is stupid enough to think that it doesn't have an effect on others when it is kept behind closed doors, stop doing yourself such a disservice and do some research. The people who commit these acts are not islands, and it certainly effects them to the extent that they then effect everyone around them with the symptoms of their disease.

Eh, sure. But the sin of the world is a personal, spiritual, and Biblical challenge for believers and churches to confront, not a political one for bureaucrats and Nazis to mandate. Besides, outlawing certain actions makes no change in people's hearts, which is what ultimately matters. The Sermon on the Mount was replete with this simple concept. I can live my life easily without murdering anyone, yet the anger in my heart sometimes is just as bad as committing murder Jesus says. Are you also for enacting thought crimes? Have you read 1984? Can you read?

I'm not supporting subjective definitions, or relative morality. There are absolutes in this world, and they are as objective as they come. And nature itself speaks to the differences between natural and unnatural behavior.

Agreed. But even though I am staunchly convinced that the Bible, its truths, and God's standards are infinitely better than any human attempt at enforcing an ethic, I am still not entitled to push this on other people through my government. It's just wrong. It would also be a contradiction of the very Christian ethic I was shoving down people's throats! Think about it--did Jesus use the political powers of his day to force everyone into submission to the word of God? No! You little rat-brained nitwit!

There is no such thing as wrong for one person and right for another.

I don't know. I've seen some pretty good looking girls in beautiful little black dresses, and I'm absolutely positive the same dress would look hideous on me. Butt face.

If you had a brain I wouldn't have had to answer.

Uhh... good one. Go drool on somebody else, Brandon.

 

[Newman]

By the way, I think it is interesting to note that although this thread was supposed to be about liberal/conservative opinions, almost all of the discussion has been dominated by authoritarian vs. libertarian viewpoints and issues. It just goes to show you that the two-party system in the USA is totally flawed. It affords no room for real change, real freedom, and real respect for the Constitution. One party will let you make your own economic decisions, but not personal ones, and the other will let you make your own personal decisions, but not economic ones. What kind of a choice is that? The only way we will move forward as a nation is by electing leaders that push for individual freedom and responsibility and a return to original interpretation of the Constitution. We cannot rely on the government to control our lives. We cannot rely on the government for anything, really. Government is bulky, irresponsive, irresponsible, immoral, and full of people with a lust to dominate. Why would anybody in their right mind view more government as a viable solution for anything?

 

[Town Heretic]

By the way, I think it is interesting to note that although this thread was supposed to be about liberal/conservative opinions, almost all of the discussion has been dominated by authoritarian vs. libertarian viewpoints and issues. It just goes to show you that the two-party system in the USA is totally flawed.

I don't think that's the problem...the problem is the one party pretending at two while serving the interests of the not so new, but increasingly powerful landed gentry. A problem in Jefferson's time counted as a virtue, but at least it had a rounded education going for it.

...We cannot rely on the government for anything, really. Government is bulky, irresponsive, irresponsible, immoral, and full of people with a lust to dominate.

So it looks a lot like the general public, but without an overriding concern for them as individuals...or do I repeat myself? :think:

Why would anybody in their right mind view more government as a viable solution for anything?

Depends on the particular.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

Because they are perverted and deviant.:dunce::duh:

How is this not common sense? Deviant and perverted behavior should not be legal.

Simple as that.

The effect such behavior has on society is detrimental to all, to the point that said behavior should not be allowed, let alone allowed to run rampant.


So does perverted and deviant behavior. It infringes on our right to be free from perversion and deviance.

And if anyone is stupid enough to think that it doesn't have an effect on others when it is kept behind closed doors, stop doing yourself such a disservice and do some research. The people who commit these acts are not islands, and it certainly effects them to the extent that they then effect everyone around them with the symptoms of their disease.


I'm not supporting subjective definitions, or relative morality. There are absolutes in this world, and they are as objective as they come. And nature itself speaks to the differences between natural and unnatural behavior.

There is no such thing as wrong for one person and right for another.


If you had a brain I wouldn't have had to answer.


How so?


Because of the effect on the public at large.


That's not the definition of deviance, moron.


Norms of society are not what define deviance and/or perversion.:nono:

And if you want to argue for progression, remember that cancer progresses too.


If you think that final sentence has any amount of truth to it you are quite the idiot.

There are four categories of things I see as sin that I also believe should be crimes; murder, theft, perjury and sexual immorality. It is true those can be broken down into sub categories, but not many.


I know people don't always like a question to be answered with another question, but I really want you to think these things through for yourself. So, what is the effect of fornication on society?

With respect:
No historical society has ever had the opportunity to experience the absence of fornication. Men being men, there is no end to fornication.
I believe adultery is destructive to the family, therefore, by extension, destructive to society.
bybee

 

[aSeattleConserv]

With respect:
No historical society has ever had the opportunity to experience the absence of fornication. Men being men, there is no end to fornication.
I believe adultery is destructive to the family, therefore, by extension, destructive to society.
bybee

Hence the importance of traditional marriage (of course interlaced with Christian/Judeo values).

As Katherine Kersten writes in this 2009 Star Tribune article:

"Marriage is a universal human institution. Across the world and throughout history, it's been exclusively male-female. That's not because of antigay bigotry, but because marriage is anchored in a primal biological and social fact: Sex between men and women creates new human beings.
The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure the best environment for rearing the children born of male-female sexual acts. Marriage channels men's and women's sexual attraction into productive ends, and harnesses the male sex drive by binding men to the mothers of their children. The evidence is overwhelming: Boys and girls flourish best with a married mother and father, who perform different and complementary roles in preparing them to deal with the world and the opposite sex."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/69411312.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

 

[Rusha]

Wow, you're dumb.

But you haven't said why yet. Which is what the question was. Butt face.

Some guy in the woods in Alaska smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy around the corner from my house smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy standing right in front of me, exhaling the smoke from his doobie right in my face would be a little annoying and stinky, but it would not affect the way I live my life, you sniveling buttinski.

Which is why you have the right to leave this country and form one somewhere else (may I suggest the moon?) where you, aSeattleConserv and all your ilk can make all the stupid laws you want to, controlling each other's perfect behavior and outlawing the non-existent sin in each other's life. Have fun! :wave2:

Eh, sure. But the sin of the world is a personal, spiritual, and Biblical challenge for believers and churches to confront, not a political one for bureaucrats and Nazis to mandate. Besides, outlawing certain actions makes no change in people's hearts, which is what ultimately matters. The Sermon on the Mount was replete with this simple concept. I can live my life easily without murdering anyone, yet the anger in my heart sometimes is just as bad as committing murder Jesus says. Are you also for enacting thought crimes? Have you read 1984? Can you read?

Agreed. But even though I am staunchly convinced that the Bible, its truths, and God's standards are infinitely better than any human attempt at enforcing an ethic, I am still not entitled to push this on other people through my government. It's just wrong. It would also be a contradiction of the very Christian ethic I was shoving down people's throats! Think about it--did Jesus use the political powers of his day to force everyone into submission to the word of God? No! You little rat-brained nitwit!

I don't know. I've seen some pretty good looking girls in beautiful little black dresses, and I'm absolutely positive the same dress would look hideous on me. Butt face.

Uhh... good one. Go drool on somebody else, Brandon.

:rotfl:

:first:

 

[aSeattleConserv]

I suspect all you have is disgust.

Sorry Fido, I didn't see you down there (a K-9 lifting his leg on a fire hydrant is below my line of vision).

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Isaiah 5:20

Yes, atheists have a way to turning things of beauty into things that are disgusting to the civilized world.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

:rotfl:

:first:

Pull yourself together Newman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zG_PN31YJU

 

[Newman]

So it looks a lot like the general public, but without an overriding concern for them as individuals...or do I repeat myself? :think:

"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us."

- The end of P.J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores.

 

[Rusha]

Note to ASC: If you think I would EVER click on any link that someone such as yourself provides, you are clearly off your rock.

 

[Quincy]

By the way, I think it is interesting to note that although this thread was supposed to be about liberal/conservative opinions, almost all of the discussion has been dominated by authoritarian vs. libertarian viewpoints and issues. It just goes to show you that the two-party system in the USA is totally flawed. It affords no room for real change, real freedom, and real respect for the Constitution. One party will let you make your own economic decisions, but not personal ones, and the other will let you make your own personal decisions, but not economic ones. What kind of a choice is that? The only way we will move forward as a nation is by electing leaders that push for individual freedom and responsibility and a return to original interpretation of the Constitution. We cannot rely on the government to control our lives. We cannot rely on the government for anything, really. Government is bulky, irresponsive, irresponsible, immoral, and full of people with a lust to dominate. Why would anybody in their right mind view more government as a viable solution for anything?

I view it as more collectivist vs objectivist values. Yes one party will let you make your own economic decisions yet they seek to control personal issues and vice versa. So it seems there is some real differences inclusive to each view but that is an offshoot of the overall ethical value system of rational self interest for objectivism and interdependence for collectivism. There actually isn't as much disparity there as it seems.

I don't agree with the amount of government we currently have but that is mostly because of Obama's stupidity in spending and adding debt during war time. He shouldn't have done any of this reform until his second term which he would have easily won if he just finished the wars and fixed unemployment. I believe that if a government is going to bestow citizenship on birth and tax all people it's creating a collective. So then it has an obligation to provide basic needs for those people.

Now I'm not saying we need programs to give people money to buy a Playstation or that we need food police or fashion police **coughflotuscough** but shelter, food, healthcare and education should be provided to tax paying citizens if they don't have the means to do it themselves. Otherwise, don't make impoverished people citizens.

 

[Granite]

Sorry Fido, I didn't see you down there (a K-9 lifting his leg on a fire hydrant is below my line of vision).

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Isaiah 5:20

Yes, atheists have a way to turning things of beauty into things that are disgusting to the civilized world.

All you seem to feel is disgust and hatred. At least that's all you seem to project on TOL as part of your persona. The only question is how much of it is self-directed.

 

[Newman]

I view it as more collectivist vs objectivist values.

I can't defend objectivism. I can defend individualism, libertarianism, and the virtue of self-interest.

Yes one party will let you make your own economic decisions yet they seek to control personal issues and vice versa. So it seems there is some real differences inclusive to each view but that is an offshoot of the overall ethical value system of rational self interest for objectivism and interdependence for collectivism. There actually isn't as much disparity there as it seems.

You're going to have to explain this "offshoot of the overall ethical value system of rational self interest for objectivism and interdependence for collectivism" for me. Are you talking about two ethics or one? Are you saying self-interest and interdependence are mutually exclusive? That objectivism reflects the right and collectivism reflects the left? I'm not arguing here, just asking for some more.

I don't agree with the amount of government we currently have but that is mostly because of Obama's stupidity in spending and adding debt during war time. He shouldn't have done any of this reform

Agreed.

until his second term

Disagreed.

which he would have easily won if he just finished the wars and fixed unemployment.

I don't think that's in his range of superpowers.

I believe that if a government is going to bestow citizenship on birth and tax all people it's creating a collective.

What's the alternative? No citizenship? No taxes? Sounds good to me, but even with citizenship, how does that necessitate a collective?

So then it has an obligation to provide basic needs for those people.

Nah.

Now I'm not saying we need programs to give people money to buy a Playstation or that we need food police or fashion police **coughflotuscough**

:rotfl:

but shelter, food, healthcare and education should be provided to tax paying citizens if they don't have the means to do it themselves. Otherwise, don't make impoverished people citizens.

I don't follow your logic here.

 

[Quincy]

I can't defend objectivism. I can defend individualism, libertarianism, and the virtue of self-interest.

That's pretty much everything involved with objectivism except for the metaphysical/existental interpretation, :chuckle: .

You're going to have to explain this "offshoot of the overall ethical value system of rational self interest for objectivism and interdependence for collectivism" for me. Are you talking about two ethics or one? Are you saying self-interest and interdependence are mutually exclusive? That objectivism reflects the right and collectivism reflects the left? I'm not arguing here, just asking for some more.

Well yea there are two different ethical systems there and some bleed together in more centrist ideas but I think overall there are two different ideas here. Interdependence would mean someone gives up some (in our societies case) wealth to better someone that doesn't have it. Rational self interest teaches that you earned that so you should reap the benefits or disperse it as you see fit. I do perceive that many parts of objectivism are mirrored in right wing politics and the opposite in left wing. For me as long as only citizens benefit from the taxes they take from me I'm fine with it.

Disagreed.

There is no one that would have beat Obama if he hadn't forced all this reform so quickly and irresponsibly. There probably still isn't anybody that is going to beat him because if you remember back to Bill Clinton he was the most hated man in America at the midterms and then he leveraged the new majorities to make himself appear more centrist. By the time he was up for re-election people loved him. Same thing will happen with Obama. Obama's fault imo is that the stupid things he has done and said have missed the chance to move this country center left.

I don't think that's in his range of superpowers.

I don't think he has any superpowers other than being exceptional at literally putting his foot in his mouth, lieing and being irresponsible.

What's the alternative? No citizenship? No taxes? Sounds good to me, but even with citizenship, how does that necessitate a collective?

Well, if it would seem to me that our society is built with a corporatism philosophy. We all have holistic rights. Chong doesn't get to legally smoke weed just because he is Chong. If you're going to hold society to norms and standards than it is a collective. It's not like the old South was with people being sovereign landowners and so forth.

Nah.

Why doesn't the government have an obligation to support people that support it?

I don't follow your logic here.

Impoverished people are still citizens and when they do buy stuff or work their minimum wage jobs they still pay taxes so why should they not have their needs helped and be given a chance to get out of the poverty? If you give people shelter, food, and healthcare to keep them alive and education so that they can get a better job than that benefits the people's lives who will then better benefit the government. Or the government can not help them but then it shouldn't really take from them or demand the same of them as others.

 

[zoo22]

[/I]
By making recreational drugs legal, you are in essense saying that they are alright to use.

snip

You want to have the civil magistrate legalize something that DESTROYS millions upon millions of lives? You in essence want the government to be the "pusher man" that now hides out in allies plying his sleazy trade.

That is one of many reasons that I'm disgusted with people like you and your godless leaders.

How's that for "the last word"?

Out of curiosity, do you support booze being legal?

 

[Lighthouse]

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works.

Are you on drugs?

Why should the state be in the business of declaring people's private choices as 'deviant' or 'perverted' and ban them based on that?

They shouldn't.

Try again.

Why not? You haven't given any answer to this. Many 'deviant' and 'perverted' behaviour is nothing more than quirky, or completely harmless. Just like my listening to obscure music, or someone else's unknown fetish - why should the government be nullifying the right to privacy and imposing conformity?

This has nothing to do with privacy.

And your definitions of deviant and perverted are largely flawed.

You say, without giving any reason.

My reason is the detriment to society. Are you illiterate?

This is about as ridiculous as the imaginary right to be free from being offended. You are free to be independent from 'perversion' and 'deviance'. Do not associate with those who engage in it. Refuse to talk about it with practitioners of it. No-one is telling you that you must be involved in sexual 'deviance'.

Do I have the right to not have it shoved in my face?

Again, you say this without citation. People leading unhealthy lifestyles (diet-wise) also effects their health and effects them around other people. People having specific compulsive disorders can also affect how they behaviour around others. Does the government get involved and impose only one acceptable specific lifestyle determined to be the least-offensive, least-upsetting and least-effecting to everyone else? Is this the sort of liberty you really believe in?

So you're calling homosexuality a disorder? If not then that argument fails.

And the issue is the level of offense, when it surpasses offense to people and is a crime against civilization itself.

Except you haven't bothered to back this up. You have just asserted it, and in doing so have also asserted the naturalistic fallacy. We do not derive and ought from an is and I'm fairly amused that you of all people would imply that we do.

We do when the "is" is a fundamental truth that cannot, and will not, change.

Perhaps not. There is such a thing, however - as liberty and personal freedom. Concepts which apparently you don't believe in.

What is apparent is that you do not know the meaning of those concepts.

Totalitarianism is the direct control from the government as to what its citizens can and cannot do. It is the absolute nullification and disregard of personal liberty and individual rights whether in public, or in private. You actually seem to believe the state should be involved in the complete regulation and imposition of specific self-declared moral lifestyles towards its citizens. Nevermind liberty. Nevermind self-determination. You think the moral code you follow is more important.

There is nothing "self-declared" about it.:nono:

You have more in common with the mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia than you do with any of the forefathers of the United States. And I would like to ask on this point (to probe your position further): What is your position on free-speech and censorship? I suspect to an extent you would insist upon it.

You do realize the founding fathers declared homosexuality illegal, don't you?

And which would I insist upon?

What effect(s)? Should we also ban unhealthy eating because of the consequences on public health?

What does health have to do with any of this? And how is my health going to effect the health of another?

I mean, you've set the standards now. The state should be directly involved in the fate of the citizens now - protecting them from themselves, right?

I have set nothing.

Insult noted and ignored. Takes a lot to make me cry.

lain:

:listensst... You're a liar. If you ignored it you wouldn't have commented.

And yes, it is the definition of deviance. It is to do with non-conformity. It is not explicitly sexual in nature. Just insulting me doesn't make your point stronger.

I never said it was explicitly sexual in nature.

per·ver·ted [per-vurt-id]
-adjective

1. Pathology . changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death.
2. turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted.
3. affected with or caused by perversion.

de·vi·ant [dee-vee-uhnt]
–adjective

1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.

See. Departing from the norm[al], not "societal norms."

But even if we accepted your definition the point still stands that we are discussing deviation to the point of perversion, not deviation in and of itself.

Yes, cancer does progress. However, we're not talking about progressive diseases.

Oh, yes we are.

Just because I am progressive minded socially does not mean I support progressive diseases (the term 'progressive' is used to describe things in more than one way).

Actually, the term "progressive" only means one thing. It is used to describe things in only that way. However, it is used to describe more than one thing. And your progressive mindedness is very certainly supportive of the diseases of sexual perversion progressing.

And yes, sir, they are. You probably think otherwise since you have your morality from an allegedly unchanging source - but pragmatically, for people who don't believe in God and the history of deviance - it describes abnormalities.

It certainly does describe abnormalities. The issue here is the definition of abnormal. You define abnormal as socially unacceptable. That is not the definition of abnormal.

Effects and results vary likely from nation to nation. Fornication itself (simply two consenting adults having sexual intercourse) is of no consequence and no-one else's business. Of course, one-night stands might be considered classless and unprotected sex as at worst, very dangerous and at best naive.

Answer the question.

But nonetheless and with all of the problems in mind (which actually stem from other cultural things such as the nightclub culture), it would be far worse to prohibit people's liberties.

You're really going to make excuses?

I should ask on this point to: Are you for the prohibitation then of nightclubs? And suggestive and 'immoral' forms of media (music, video games, movies)? Where does your non-interest in people's liberty begin and end?

There is no such thing as an immoral form of media, moron.

Wow, you're dumb.

lain:

But you haven't said why yet. Which is what the question was. Butt face.

:doh:

Some guy in the woods in Alaska smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy around the corner from my house smokin' a doobie has zero effect on the way I live my life. Some guy standing right in front of me, exhaling the smoke from his doobie right in my face would be a little annoying and stinky, but it would not affect the way I live my life, you sniveling buttinski.

When did drugs enter the picture?

Which is why you have the right to leave this country and form one somewhere else (may I suggest the moon?) where you, aSeattleConserv and all your ilk can make all the stupid laws you want to, controlling each other's perfect behavior and outlawing the non-existent sin in each other's life. Have fun! :wave2:

Who said sin was non-existent in my life?

Eh, sure. But the sin of the world is a personal, spiritual, and Biblical challenge for believers and churches to confront, not a political one for bureaucrats and Nazis to mandate. Besides, outlawing certain actions makes no change in people's hearts, which is what ultimately matters. The Sermon on the Mount was replete with this simple concept. I can live my life easily without murdering anyone, yet the anger in my heart sometimes is just as bad as committing murder Jesus says. Are you also for enacting thought crimes? Have you read 1984? Can you read?

So making rules for children telling them what is right and what is wrong doesn't change their hearts?

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.
-Proverbs 22:15

Agreed. But even though I am staunchly convinced that the Bible, its truths, and God's standards are infinitely better than any human attempt at enforcing an ethic, I am still not entitled to push this on other people through my government. It's just wrong. It would also be a contradiction of the very Christian ethic I was shoving down people's throats! Think about it--did Jesus use the political powers of his day to force everyone into submission to the word of God? No! You little rat-brained nitwit!

Romans 13:1-5

And Jesus wasn't there to do that. He was there to die for us, period. But God did use the government to force submission before that, didn't He?

And how is it a contradiction of Christian ethic?

I don't know. I've seen some pretty good looking girls in beautiful little black dresses, and I'm absolutely positive the same dress would look hideous on me. Butt face.

Idiot.

Uhh... good one. Go drool on somebody else, Brandon.

You need to work on your insult tactics. You suck at it.

 

[Newman]

Idiot.

Butt face.

 

[Skavau]

Are you on drugs?

No. Are you not familiar with the concept of circular logic?

They shouldn't.

Try again.

What? This is some strange doublespeak now. The crux of everything you have been saying is that the state should be outlawing deviant sexual behaviour - now you say the state should not be involved in it?

What was this: "How is this not common sense? Deviant and perverted behavior should not be legal." supposed to mean then?

This has nothing to do with privacy.

And your definitions of deviant and perverted are largely flawed.

Well, I can see that privacy apparently means nothing to you - so of course it means nothing to you. You don't appear to be interested in people's privacy.

What is wrong with my application of the terms deviant and perverted?

My reason is the detriment to society. Are you illiterate?

Are you misusing terms to smear others? You just decree in a line that specific 'perverted' behaviour is somehow detrimental to society without bothering to citate or reason it and expect me to just agree with it?

Do I have the right to not have it shoved in my face?

Sure. In a literal sense. That said, if you believe accidently viewing it on television or stumbling across it on the internet is amongst having it 'shoved in your face', then no.

So you're calling homosexuality a disorder? If not then that argument fails.

No, I'm wondering how far you might literally go in attempting to protect people from themselves. If people's lifestyles can be such a strain on society that they need to be protected from themselves - then how and when do you draw the line. I don't personally believe homosexuality is a danger, or burden or actually anything to do with you or I in anyway at all.

And the issue is the level of offense, when it surpasses offense to people and is a crime against civilization itself.

This is just white noise to me. What do you declare is a crime against civilization itself exactly?

We do when the "is" is a fundamental truth that cannot, and will not, change.

Have you ever taken a class on basic ethics? We don't state that death is a good thing because it will hit everyone. We do not declare that many forms of diseases are good things because they might be quite prevalant.

In addition, your claim that nature has endorsed behaviour in itself isn't even backed up. Instances of homosexuality, promiscuity are all noted in nature. This is no reason to declare that we all ought to engnage in them ourselves, but again there it is.

What is apparent is that you do not know the meaning of those concepts.

So update me then. What am I getting wrong about liberty?

There is nothing "self-declared" about it.

That is the only point you took issue with? The fact I called your morality 'self-declared' absolute, or relevant? Because, and I repeat - it is from where I am sitting. I'm glad you don't feel the need to query the totalitarian aspect.

You do realize the founding fathers declared homosexuality illegal, don't you?

And it changed, as it was incompatible with your constitution. Keep in mind the founding fathers also endorsed slavery.

And which would I insist upon?

Censorship. Would you censor specific sexual literature? Suggestive media that deals with banned behaviour?

What does health have to do with any of this? And how is my health going to effect the health of another?

I thought your ethos was to be in the business of protecting people from themselves? What does a consenting homosexual couple have to do with you? What might an unmarried couple with no desire to tie the knot have to do with you (if they're fornicating)?

I have set nothing.

Yes you have. You have repeatedly declared that certain sexual deviancy ought to be outlawed as they are apparently crimes that go beyond offense (whatever that means).

Psst... You're a liar. If you ignored it you wouldn't have commented.

This is a relevant comment... really.

See. Departing from the norm[al], not "societal norms."

Frivolous semantics. Let me go through the definitions.

per·ver·ted [per-vurt-id]
-adjective

1. Pathology . changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death.
2. turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted.
3. affected with or caused by perversion.

Perversion means a distorted, tactless interest in a particular topic. It is considered as (2) says to be a distortion of what is a satisfactory interest in a given subject. However, there are many perversions out there that are harmless and should not be prohibited.

·vi·ant [dee-vee-uhnt]
–adjective

1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.

This is pretty much what I said - so what is your problem?

Deviant behaviour is departure from conformity in society. The single definition you've provided for it merely phrases it in a different way.

But even if we accepted your definition the point still stands that we are discussing deviation to the point of perversion, not deviation in and of itself.

And as I said above - I wouldn't ban people from having sexual fetishes, or specific sexual interests.

Actually, the term "progressive" only means one thing. It is used to describe things in only that way. However, it is used to describe more than one thing. And your progressive mindedness is very certainly supportive of the diseases of sexual perversion progressing.

Except my 'progressive mind' is actually far more interested in equal rights and personal liberty far more than in sexual perversion. And please, don't tell me that progressive only have one meaning - because it does not.

Now excuse me whilst I put Dream Theater on and you mull over that point.

It certainly does describe abnormalities. The issue here is the definition of abnormal. You define abnormal as socially unacceptable. That is not the definition of abnormal.

So what is then?

Answer the question.

I did: I am well aware, sir, of issues surrounding a culture of free sex and the many sexually transmitted diseases that could come of it. I am well aware of the social implications and problems that arise from it. You do not need me to sit here and go through all of the issues.

You're really going to make excuses?

No. I'm going to hold to my point that privacy is important.

There is no such thing as an immoral form of media, moron.

Grow up. Insulting people is what 10 year olds do.

But you also didn't answer my question. Would you censor specific media dealing with sexual 'perversions'?

 

[Newman]

No. Are you not familiar with the concept of circular logic?


What? This is some strange doublespeak now. The crux of everything you have been saying is that the state should be outlawing deviant sexual behaviour - now you say the state should not be involved in it?

What was this: "How is this not common sense? Deviant and perverted behavior should not be legal." supposed to mean then?


Well, I can see that privacy apparently means nothing to you - so of course it means nothing to you. You don't appear to be interested in people's privacy.

What is wrong with my application of the terms deviant and perverted?


Are you misusing terms to smear others? You just decree in a line that specific 'perverted' behaviour is somehow detrimental to society without bothering to citate or reason it and expect me to just agree with it?


Sure. In a literal sense. That said, if you believe accidently viewing it on television or stumbling across it on the internet is amongst having it 'shoved in your face', then no.


No, I'm wondering how far you might literally go in attempting to protect people from themselves. If people's lifestyles can be such a strain on society that they need to be protected from themselves - then how and when do you draw the line. I don't personally believe homosexuality is a danger, or burden or actually anything to do with you or I in anyway at all.


This is just white noise to me. What do you declare is a crime against civilization itself exactly?


Have you ever taken a class on basic ethics? We don't state that death is a good thing because it will hit everyone. We do not declare that many forms of diseases are good things because they might be quite prevalant.

In addition, your claim that nature has endorsed behaviour in itself isn't even backed up. Instances of homosexuality, promiscuity are all noted in nature. This is no reason to declare that we all ought to engnage in them ourselves, but again there it is.


So update me then. What am I getting wrong about liberty?


That is the only point you took issue with? The fact I called your morality 'self-declared' absolute, or relevant? Because, and I repeat - it is from where I am sitting. I'm glad you don't feel the need to query the totalitarian aspect.


And it changed, as it was incompatible with your constitution. Keep in mind the founding fathers also endorsed slavery.


Censorship. Would you censor specific sexual literature? Suggestive media that deals with banned behaviour?


I thought your ethos was to be in the business of protecting people from themselves? What does a consenting homosexual couple have to do with you? What might an unmarried couple with no desire to tie the knot have to do with you (if they're fornicating)?


Yes you have. You have repeatedly declared that certain sexual deviancy ought to be outlawed as they are apparently crimes that go beyond offense (whatever that means).


This is a relevant comment... really.


Frivolous semantics. Let me go through the definitions.


Perversion means a distorted, tactless interest in a particular topic. It is considered as (2) says to be a distortion of what is a satisfactory interest in a given subject. However, there are many perversions out there that are harmless and should not be prohibited.


This is pretty much what I said - so what is your problem?

Deviant behaviour is departure from conformity in society. The single definition you've provided for it merely phrases it in a different way.


And as I said above - I wouldn't ban people from having sexual fetishes, or specific sexual interests.


Except my 'progressive mind' is actually far more interested in equal rights and personal liberty far more than in sexual perversion. And please, don't tell me that progressive only have one meaning - because it does not.

Now excuse me whilst I put Dream Theater on and you mull over that point.


So what is then?


I did: I am well aware, sir, of issues surrounding a culture of free sex and the many sexually transmitted diseases that could come of it. I am well aware of the social implications and problems that arise from it. You do not need me to sit here and go through all of the issues.


No. I'm going to hold to my point that privacy is important.


Grow up. Insulting people is what 10 year olds do.

But you also didn't answer my question. Would you censor specific media dealing with sexual 'perversions'?

Absolutely astounding. Astounding in many ways. Astounding retorts, astounding logic, and astounding completeness.

It's astounding that you are still trying to convince butt face here (I only call him butt face in a satirical sort of way--you know, a taste of his own butt-faceness) when he is and always will be totally ignorant, stubborn in his false conception of reality, and immature while doing so (hence the butt face label).

His relentless effort to get things wrong is almost as astounding as your relentless effort to wipe his drool.

It's astounding that I've found yet another Dream Theater fan, too!

I'd give you an astounding three cheers, but you're probably too far away to hear my clapping. Nevertheless, keep it up! :first:

 

[Paulos]

Because they are perverted and deviant.

1989: Gay prostitutes, Reagan-Bush administration

History--and hypocrisy--repeats itself:

2005: Gay prostitutes in Bush White House