It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:40 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
A moral hierarchy would exist as is ideal of course, but the ideal is for the citizenry to act in the state's best interests within reason because the state exists to serve and protect them. The state is the only thing that can provide "natural rights."


I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. You seem to be arguing that, because the state is there to serve and protect, the citizenry should allow themselves to be served and protected.

You have it backwards. If the state is in our best interest, surely educated and informed people will come to see that. If they don't, one shouldn't limit education. If educated people don't see the virtue of the state, that would mean the state has no virtue. That is the guage whereby we must judge the state.

Let there be no talk of third ways or alternatives. You don't get to decide. You aren't the moral authority of society. If educated people happen to agree with you then you happen to be right but it will always be contingent.

As soon as you take the state as necessary, you have gone wrong. The greatest wrongs have been perpetrated by people who 'knew better', who 'knew' what was good for other people. This applies equally to parents as to religious leaders and everyone between. In many cases, violent revolution was needed to instill a new order. You don't get to decide the order. Get with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:46 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I think every society is and always will be ruled by elites. Get with that... or don't. I don't really care to be honest :lol:

Quote:
You seem to be arguing that, because the state is there to serve and protect, the citizenry should allow themselves to be served and protected.
I can interpret several things from this first sentence. I'm not sure just what you mean.
Quote:
If educated people happen to agree with you then you happen to be right but it will always be contingent.
so a majority of educated people will always be right? What if they vote something racist?

Should I not be free to my own ideas as to what the ideal is? I state that which I view as necessary in order for a free republic to exist. I have not said I would impose such by force upon a state already in existence.

Quote:
If they don't, one shouldn't limit education.
I believe children in schools should be taught sex ed from a different perspective. However, I think the truth should be revealed to all adult citizens in a free republic. Those who have roots in the republic and education should be free to vote. The decisions, like those of any other power, will be imperfect at times, but should still be followed. Whether a state is free to dissolve itself ought to depend upon the Constitution. If such is not allowed, then all patriotic forces ought to do what they can to resist the state's destruction.

Violent revolutions almost always make things worse lol. The way the US has "progressed," it would have been better under England's boot. I'm all for small, self government as an ideal. If the state is too large or too centralised, then secession is fine. However order is needed, and violent revolutions ought to be avoided as much as is possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
I think every society is and always will be ruled by elites. Get with that...

Should I not be free to my own ideas as to what the ideal is? I state that which I view as necessary in order for a free republic to exist. I have not said I would impose such by force upon a state already in existence.


Get with it? I think you mean I should accept what you say. 'Society is necessarily ruled by elites, so listen to what I say'. Thanks for putting me in the 'ruled' category.

Quote:
so a majority of educated people will always be right? What if they vote something racist?


Then they would not be too educated, hence your question is invalid.

Quote:
I believe children in schools should be taught sex ed from a different perspective.


Your perspective.

Quote:
Whether a state is free to dissolve itself ought to depend upon the Constitution. If such is not allowed, then all patriotic forces ought to do what they can to resist the state's destruction.


Yes, the constitution is more important than people. The law comes first. People don't count, the law counts.

Quote:
I'm all for small, self government as an ideal. However order is needed, and violent revolutions ought to be avoided as much as is possible.


Yes, the law must stand unopposed. Never let the law be doubted. I'm surprised you don't favour monarchy, or do you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
From the other thread,

Trip wrote:
Teaching them in the right manner will, sure. But today's sex ed tells students it's normal to have sex and also that being gay is normal. It ought to tell them that it is ideal not to have sex until married as well as the obvious that being gay is not normal.


Why is it ideal to not have sex until marriage in the age where birth control effectiveness is 100% for all intents and purposes?

How is a pair of people getting married, having sex, then divorcing after two months in massive arguments better than a pair of people who have been in a relationship for two years having sex?

Why do you think everyone's children should be taught what you believe?

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:06 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Quote:
Get with it? I think you mean I should accept what you say. 'Society is necessarily ruled by elites, so listen to what I say'. Thanks for putting me in the 'ruled' category.
That's obviously not what I was saying. If you're not going to even attempt to understand what someone is writing, then I'm not going to bother. If this is something monarchists or whatever else do, then fine, I'm a monarchist and wish to be king... The get with it was a reference to your silly "Get with that" comment.
Quote:
Then they would not be too educated, hence your question is invalid.
What?? Educated people can be racist just as can anyone else. They can also be religious or atheist, nationalist or globalist, etc. They can love their family and hometown or drink and smoke. How old are you? Is this what is taught in British schools?

qviri,

Schools have to teach someone's principles. Ideally there should be a strong degree of decentralisation, but yes I would like the principles I believe in to be taught as opposed to what is presently taught.

Quote:
Why is it ideal to not have sex until marriage in the age where birth control effectiveness is 100% for all intents and purposes?
If it was 100%, then perhaps things would be different as far as I can see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
What would be the required cut-off? 90%? 95%? 99.9%? Pure 100%?

My middle question stands.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:18 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm
Posts: 502
qviri wrote:
From the other thread,

Trip wrote:
Teaching them in the right manner will, sure. But today's sex ed tells students it's normal to have sex and also that being gay is normal. It ought to tell them that it is ideal not to have sex until married as well as the obvious that being gay is not normal.


Why is it ideal to not have sex until marriage in the age where birth control effectiveness is 100% for all intents and purposes?


Sexually transmitted diseases is one reason. The idea that a soul is created the moment a child would be conceived is another. The idea that all people are made in the image and likeness of God and that sexual activity in marriage allows people to be more like God in that there is a life long bond between them and from their love comes new people like the Holy Ghost proceeds from the love between Father and the Son is a third.

qviri wrote:
How is a pair of people getting married, having sex, then divorcing after two months in massive arguments better than a pair of people who have been in a relationship for two years having sex?


There is no difference, which is why divorce and the general disregard for the seriousness of marriage, are so detrimental to our society.

We have King Henry VIII to thank for this, as he founded the Church of England specifically to secure a divorce, as prior to that point in time, divorce was strictly forbidden and the notion of having one was inexistent. Ironically, all of the anti-Catholicism that has resulted from the foundation of the Church of English proceeds from this, the Church of England is now opposed to this and people realize none of this.

qviri wrote:
Why do you think everyone's children should be taught what you believe?


To expand on your question, why should everyone's children be taught what any one group of individuals believe? By making such statements in favor of sexual education classes, political correctness in English classes, evolution in science classes and progressivism in history classes and forcing people's children, those who say that are supporting the notion that everyone's children should be taught what one group of individuals believe, despite the fact that the school system was not established to do any of this and rather it was established to teach only Math and English.

If the school system would implement the suggestions I made earlier in the previous thread (only teach Math and English, require people to pay for school, do not require people to attend like people are required to attend today), then all of this would be avoided.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
The idea that a soul is created the moment a child would be conceived is another.


Unsubstantiated rubbish. If God is so great, why should he stick to this rule that souls are always created? If this was so bad, wouldn't he use his infinite knowledge to ensure that souls are only created when the child will not be aborted, for instance?

There should be no reason why abortion is bad at all. In fact, God could send a 'pretend' soul into those to-be-aborted foeti/fetuses, a soul-automaton. There would be no cost involved.

In other words, it is utter rubbish to suppose that souls are always created.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:27 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
A life is a life... It might be convenient to remove the unborn and extremely aged from humanity, but it defies logic. Even outside religion, our societies are founded upon the premise that all life is special.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
A life is a life... It might be convenient to remove the unborn and extremely aged from humanity, but it defies logic. Even outside religion, our societies are founded upon the premise that all life is special.


Says you. Do you care to support this contention of yours?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:53 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Support: Why do we reject a system of classes and special rights? Because we're all equally human. Why is slavery bad? Because slaves are human too. Slavery has been justified in earlier times that slaves were less intelligent and moral and better suited for slavery than freedom. However, we today view it as wrong because we should all be equally free.

We view it as wrong to bomb civilians and to pollute other states because those citizens are equally human. We protect the weak in our societies even when they are a net drain on our economies because we view them as important simply for being human.

There's no "reason" for human life to be valuable outside of the Christian religion, but such is self evidently a core premise of our society today.

Natural law, in nature, is simply take what you can and keep what you can. Anything goes provided you can get away with it. It can be advantageous to treat others well when others are aware, but if you can get away with something without their knowledge, there's no "rational" negative.

---

Why wouldn't God put souls into the unborn as he does with everyone else? Many die young. If you don't believe in souls, then why is it wrong to kill another human? Or a retarded human with an IQ of an ape for medical research when apes are killed for the same purpose?


Last edited by Trip on Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
why should everyone's children be taught what any one group of individuals believe? By making such statements in favor of sexual education classes, political correctness in English classes, evolution in science classes and progressivism in history classes


Evolution is taught in science classes because it is science (from the Latin root scientia meaning "knowledge"); as yet there is no truly scientific theory which explains the manner in which the different species have arisen better than evolution.

What's progressivism btw?

Quote:
There should be no reason why abortion is bad at all.


Well, in principle it is troubling; why is it murder once the subject has been born, and not when they are in the womb? Why is it acceptable to kill people who are less than a certain age (9 months)?

Quote:
It might be convenient to remove the unborn and extremely aged from humanity, but it defies logic.


Actually, it's extremely logical to remove the most elderly members of a population; economically they are a burden, one reason why China and India have such robust economic growth is the preponderance of young people of working age.

Vertigo, it might make this discussion a little less adversarial if you could restrict your use of hyperbole and confrontational rhetoric.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:10 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Quote:
What's progressivism btw?
My guess is this is the teaching that history moves in a progressive line from worse to better.

I think this is a Western tendency. Chinese have told me they learn of cycles which sounds far more reasonable to me.

On evolution, it's clear that evolution occurs to a degree. However, it seems far fetched that man is necessarily evolved from even an ape let alone something lower. I would like an addition to biology books that acknowledges that creation is a reasonable alternative theory.

Quote:
Actually, it's extremely logical to remove the most elderly members of a population; economically they are a burden, one reason why China and India have such robust economic growth is the preponderance of young people of working age.
I wrote my statement quickly. What I meant to say was that it defies this founding premise that life is valuable. I agree (obviously :) )it is logical from an economic view.

Another reason not to provoke trip is the quality of his posting decreases. As a result... the discussions last longer than they should as everyone, including Trip, tries to figure what the hell he really means.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
Vertigo, it might make this discussion a little less adversarial if you could restrict your use of hyperbole and confrontational rhetoric.


It also might be rather futile. It seems to me that Trip's contention is that individuals don't exist but individual states exist, which seems to me to be entirely incoherent. If individuals don't exist then nothing exists; there is no type without tokens.

So it's getting to the point where if something coherent slips through, I'm assuming it was by chance and not intention.

Anyhow, on a charitable reading, Trip seems to be expressing his own view without support in many cases. Where does one find a founding premise? Where does this premise come from? It must be justified on the level of individuals (which don't exist according to Trip) or else it is mere fantasy.

On reflection, I don't think my continued postage will make this thread particularly enjoyable to read, so I'll allow Trip to flush out his view for a while.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Silly me, types and tokens don't really apply. The state is certainly not a type of individual. Nevertheless, taking the state as indivisible and supposing you are at the helm seems beside the point. Ok, that is all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
Shining Arcanine wrote:
qviri wrote:
From the other thread,

Trip wrote:
Teaching them in the right manner will, sure. But today's sex ed tells students it's normal to have sex and also that being gay is normal. It ought to tell them that it is ideal not to have sex until married as well as the obvious that being gay is not normal.


Why is it ideal to not have sex until marriage in the age where birth control effectiveness is 100% for all intents and purposes?


Sexually transmitted diseases is one reason. The idea that a soul is created the moment a child would be conceived is another. The idea that all people are made in the image and likeness of God and that sexual activity in marriage allows people to be more like God in that there is a life long bond between them and from their love comes new people like the Holy Ghost proceeds from the love between Father and the Son is a third.


Okay, so one reason and two ideas. Based on your next paragraph, I'm sure you will agree that what you believe should have no bearing whether two other people have sex.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:40 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm
Posts: 502
vertigo wrote:
Quote:
The idea that a soul is created the moment a child would be conceived is another.


Unsubstantiated rubbish. If God is so great, why should he stick to this rule that souls are always created? If this was so bad, wouldn't he use his infinite knowledge to ensure that souls are only created when the child will not be aborted, for instance?

There should be no reason why abortion is bad at all. In fact, God could send a 'pretend' soul into those to-be-aborted foeti/fetuses, a soul-automaton. There would be no cost involved.

In other words, it is utter rubbish to suppose that souls are always created.


No it is not, but I find it strange that you even care, because by your logic, you have no soul.

Anyone that believes in God believes that souls are created, and despite demonic possessions and hauntings that have been well documented, the notion that souls exist is impossible to prove. Thus anyone who believes in God must believe that souls are created at the exact moment that a person would be conceived, as no other possible moment can be stated with any certainty, which is why by your logic, you have no soul, as to call into question the existence of any one soul is to call into question the existence of your own.

jaganath wrote:
Actually, it's extremely logical to remove the most elderly members of a population; economically they are a burden, one reason why China and India have such robust economic growth is the preponderance of young people of working age.


While the Marxists in China have done terrible things, they have not killed people because they are old. The main reason China and India have such robust economy growth is because they have so many well educated people finding higher paying jobs, as a result of economic policies in those countries changing to be more open or to use better defined term, more laissez faire. If we had as many well educated people as China and India do and a laissez-faire economy, we would have robust economy growth as well. The things that keep us from that is our small population, the fairly low percentage of our population that is college educated and government policies that are fascist (the idea that government should interfere in matters of business) and socialist (the idea that government should attempt to control the economy). If the federal government would restrict its activities to those allowed within the constitution (stop trying to do things for people and stop unconstitutionally preventing states have considering bans on abortion), cut spending, cut taxes, institute an open immigration policy (i.e. only people that are approved shall come into the country but there shall be no limit on the number of people that are approved) and seal the border, we would see the economy (and thus the standard of living) skyrocket as the economy shifts to having more established Americans become more educated, taking higher end jobs alongside the more educated immigrants while less established people (i.e. uneducated immigrants) take the jobs that the more established people left when they became educated. Immigration will occur so long as there is an economic demand for it while our countries' vast resources will ensure solid stable growth limited only by the size of our population and the education of our work force, so long as the politicians do not trade the economy for people's votes by taking advantage of the less educated through promises of fascist and/or socialist government policies because they supposedly cannot help themselves.

By the way, being college educated means you earned a college degree as a result of actual learning rather than being pushed through college and learning nothing. Some people think that the fact that the degree says college ensures that they make more money, and thus standards could be relaxed through government intervention to ensure that they get it and therefore make more money but rather, it is the standards behind the degree and the lack of government intervention in the countries' universities that ensures that people with college degrees make more money. I am specifying this as I do not want to promote the idea that lowering standards through government intervention to push people through college will ensure that people make more money.

Trip wrote:
Quote:
What's progressivism btw?
My guess is this is the teaching that history moves in a progressive line from worse to better.


Progressivism tends to move things from better to worse while introjecting that things are getting better, but that is from my understanding of things.

Trip wrote:
I think this is a Western tendency. Chinese have told me they learn of cycles which sounds far more reasonable to me.


They do. As I said earlier in this post, liberal (i.e. laissez-faire) economies have people work their way to higher standards of living (i.e. Bill Gates), at some point people drop and then they work their way to higher standards of living, completing the cycle.

To illustrate what I mean by people dropping, I will use Bill Gates' family. At some point, as generations pass, the money Bill Gates' has made will be depleted due to any of many possible things, which include poor business decisions, donations to those who are less fortunate (Bill Gates says that he will give almost all of his wealth away so that his children will have to work like he did), the inheritance being split many times, the inheritance being depleted by time or the inheritance simply being stolen (e.g. the Marxists coming to power in mainland China and stealing from those who had wealth), such that his posteriority will be forced to work their way through the ranks to re-attain it.

I am part Chinese so I am not entirely ignorant of what is happening and what has happened in China. Relatives of mine were made into paupers when the Marxists came to power, much like the von Trapp family in The Sound of Music. My father immigrated here after the fact and re-established himself, raising his standard of living (and therefore mine, although I was born years after he came here) above what it was in China. I am presently in college and I intend to work so that my future children will have a higher standard of living than I have. This cycle is the quintessence of the American dream and I am no stranger to it.

qviri wrote:
Okay, so one reason and two ideas. Based on your next paragraph, I'm sure you will agree that what you believe should have no bearing whether two other people have sex.


Yes, I agree, as what I believe should no bearing on things because I believe it, rather what is right should have bearing on things because it is true and if what I believe is what is right, then so be it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
The main reason China and India have such robust economy growth is because they have so many well educated people finding higher paying jobs


Actually the reason China is doing so well is because they have a distorted currency and millions of uneducated peasants who will work for peanuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:22 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Vertigo,

I said individuals do not exist to the degree you seem to believe they exist.

What that means is that we're all members of families, extended families, communities, nations, states, and often religions.

Jaganoth,

I think China has a very strong education system as well with a good number of engineers produced each year. A quick google search came up with this (China graduates three times more engineers annually than the US). You probably already knew that, but I figured I'd add it anyway. And... China also uses the border adjusted VAT to its advantage with the US.

Shining,

I didn't mean that what is generally called progress is truly an improvement, though I suppose if frustration with globalism led to decentralisation it could be painted as inevitably leading to the improved decentralisation. However, after a while we'd just start globalising again. The cycle would begin again.

As for Bill Gates and such, you assume the rich won't abuse their power. You think too highly of them. Big business and big government are the globalist powers that be. It's not free enterprise vs. socialism but globalism vs. free republics as I see it. The closer states devolve to a human scale, the better.

Anyway, what often seems to be the case with the wealthy is that they are workaholics and do not bother to spend time with their families.

You pointed out the sacred nature of intercourse, and I think that's precisely the way it must be viewed. I suppose it would be damaging to society for a group to have sex without reproducing simply because it would encourage others to do the same who will accidentally reproduce. Sex is intended for reproduction. Unless humanity is altered, perhaps so that reproduction is not enjoyable but something similar without the consequences takes its place, we must exist as we are. And perhaps such is the way it should be. I certainly don't favor putting man in God's place.

I don't mean to deconstruction Christianity, but I'm a mere theist, that is to say I believe in a Creator, but I'm uncertain of a religion. Since a religion is needed, I default to Christianity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:37 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm
Posts: 502
jaganath wrote:
Quote:
The main reason China and India have such robust economy growth is because they have so many well educated people finding higher paying jobs


Actually the reason China is doing so well is because they have a distorted currency and millions of uneducated peasants who will work for peanuts.


They have more college educated individuals than the United States, in addition to all of the uneducated peasants.

Trip wrote:
As for Bill Gates and such, you assume the rich won't abuse their power. You think too highly of them. Big business and big government are the globalist powers that be. It's not free enterprise vs. socialism but globalism vs. free republics as I see it. The closer states devolve to a human scale, the better.


What power? They have a single vote, just like the rest of us, and as time has shown, the "rich" are not rich forever.

Time shall render their wealth what it rendered the wealth of the past, which was to destroy it. Wealth accumulates and then disperses, over varying intervals of time, and to interfere with this cycle will lead to the destruction of jobs and increases in the standard of living before either of them even happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:03 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
They can bribe and lobby politicians for starters. Most of the problems seem to stem from influencing government, but a business can also bribe testers of products and other watch dogs or use its sheer size unfairly, e.g. refuse to buy from suppliers and advertisers who supply and serve smaller competitors or charge absurd prices upon achieving monopoly.

Roads can be built near certain farms, contracts given to certain businesses, wars begun for Haliburton and US/British oil or Hearst, land transferred under eminent domain, tax deductions provided to "encourage investment," etc.

Business also needs to be regulated to ensure it doesn't pursue its own interests at the expense of the state. The most obvious example is pollution.

Power can be abused.

China is also more homogenous and with a higher average IQ than the US. I'm not an expert on China, but its future looks pretty good to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Posts: 545
Location: GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, UK
Quote:
Unless humanity is altered, perhaps so that reproduction is not enjoyable but something similar without the consequences takes its place, we must exist as we are.


Is that not a description of gay sex?

I am being a bit controversial I am sure, but as a heterosexual aethiest, I am still a bit unsure about why gay sex is considered unnatural?

_________________
www.Justblair.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
I am still a bit unsure about why gay sex is considered unnatural?


Supposedly nature didn't intend it. Which is fine, I accept that. That's what vaginas are for.

But when did we decide that natural = good?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Posts: 545
Location: GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, UK
I reject the notion that nature intends anything. Stuff happens accidentally all the time. Homosexuality occurs in animals as well as humans, it is not an abhoration of nature, but a quirk of nature. IMO

I take your point though that natural=good is a contentious suposition.

The other counter to that arguement is that anally penetrative gay sex is not practiced by all gay men (or women). Quite a lot of gay men practice non anal sexual acts that are not any different to sexual acts practiced by heterosexual couples. So if it is the mechanical act of non vaginal sex itself that is unnatural then surely a heterosexual couple engaging in the same act are doing something unnatural as well?

I suspect though that the opposition to homosexuality is more deep routed than just the act itself. I would be interested in hearing from someone opposed to homosexuality what they think is so wrong?

_________________
www.Justblair.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:19 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
It serves no purpose. The purpose of sex is reproduction. Males and females are supposed to be attracted to each other.

If people want 'fun', they should pursue another pleasure.

Homosexual men tend to be very active which can be seen not only in what I've seen (flirting and passes) first hand, read and heard second hand, and seen with the high rate of AIDS. They spread disease. Other health problems result as well I've heard.

Admittedly there is supposed to be some pleasure received back there.


I'm not sure I agree nature is fully random. I do tend to think that way, but a full acceptance of such would be a full acceptance of evolution. I suspect a part of my desire to retain what is natural is simply because it is what was created. However, it's also what is and is important simply because it is a boundary and an ideal, insofar as purposes of nature can be ascertained, that can be preserved and pursued.

Quote:
I take your point though that natural=good is a contentious suposition.
it needs to be controlled, but I think caring for offspring and defending the state ranks higher than having sex. That is to say the institution of the family ought to be defended.

EDIT: clarification, I mean by "ranks higher" as is more important to our nature. IOW, there's a hierarchy of importance.


Last edited by Trip on Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
[removed - didn't realise what Trip was replying to. Sorry about that.]

Quote:
Homosexual men tend to be very active which can be seen not only in what I've heard first hand, read second hand, and seen with the high rate of AIDS. They spread disease.


That's not a problem with gay sex, that's a problem with some of gay sex practitioners. Following your logic, we should outlaw America because it tends be push its nose where it has no business. It spreads war.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Last edited by qviri on Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:34 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I didnt' mean gay sex should be outlawed in the home. It's more important to have a free people that aren't afraid of their government invading their homes I think.

Other countries ought to stand up to America and other forces as they can in their best interests.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:05 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Haha, I just realised I do believe in a natural law somewhat... So what I had said to Erssa, that natural law if anything is that anything goes, isn't entirely true.

EDIT: Well actually, it is true bc a belief in creation is required for such natural law. A belief in no creation leads to "anything goes." So what I said to Erssa does remain true.

So what is the center? What is the ultimate goal of our societies? Preservation of our loved ones and pursuit of the good life.

Well I'm half asleep as usual...

But I will say to JustBlair that the promotion of feminist values (yes I'm sexist too lol though only mildly so) and homosexual rights is at the expense of the traditional family unit which is ideal for raising children. The family unit is also at the root of particular ties as well as divisions. That's not to say that lacking a family a child will not be racist, but perhaps even the contrary: lacking any particular attachment a child will tend towards an abstract such as race or citizenship to fill the void. However, WWII is supposed to have taught us (falsely IMO) that pride in anything is dangerous and that universals are the ideal and so perhaps this is the reason the institution of the family is under attack. The attack on the family is a pursuit of universals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Trip, you might be interested in (enjoy) reading "What I believe" by Leo Tolstoy. It is available for free online, I don't have time to look right now.

Correction!!! Wrong book, I meant Confession. Get it here: http://www.classicallibrary.org/tolstoy ... /index.htm


Last edited by vertigo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:28 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I've heard good things about Tolstoy.

-------

An addition I should have made last night:

Women ought to be free to stay home to take care of the children when they are needed there. Afterwards, they should be free to work or to keep house and pursue volunteer work or to help with others in the family if they so choose. Peer pressure in a sense ought to keep them from working when needed more at the home (when the lost income can be foresaken).

Men ought to work to provide for their family.

When a father leaves a mother, the family or in its absense, the local community ought to pitch in, not the federal government.

So welfare is, too, an attack on the particulars and a promotion of the universals.

It's a culture clash. The Napoleon of Notting Hill Vs. Brave New World.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group