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

[Frank Ernest]

One wonders what evidence LH can provide to show how he *knows* how all homosexuals, fornicators and viewers of pornography will act then.

Would the same apply to liars, drunkards, the unloving, the unmerciful, the covetous?

:think:

Why are you bringing the UN into this?

 

[Granite]

Brandon's arrogance and stupidity (let alone his immaturity) has, inexplicably, gotten worse over time. Unreal.

 

[Lighthouse]

They have a very 'open' culture, shall we say, sexually. If you think some media content in the United States is objectionable then you have seen nothing as to what screens in Japan.

They censor their pornography. Even to the point of censoring things that are not defined as pornography, but still have sexual images. So they may go to extremes with their subject matter, but they censor all of it. Kind of defeats the purpose if you ask me.

Great! So i don't get your haranguing over the possibility of people quitting their 'sexual deviancy' when you concede it could and has happened.

:doh:

Oh of course. And because you're sarcasm impaired, I'll point it out.

They tell me I should be. But I'm sarcastic all the time.:idunno:

Now, where are you going to point it out, whatever "it" is?

That is ridiculous but nonetheless on hindsight, completely unsurprising.

The amount I've met and not one runs contrary to what I have learned?

So there we go then. You wouldn't actually believe me if I told you that they said they could quit. So it is just like I said: What would be the point?

No, I would believe you that they said that. I just wouldn't believe them merely because they said it.

Video game addiction can be if you're in a relationship. It can also halt future relationship developments. A bad diet that puts your own health and/or life at risk can certainly upset those around you. They can negatively effect people just as much as you say homosexuality, pornography and fornication can.

Detriment to the relationship is not detriment to the other person, as in injurious to them. Homosexuality puts others at risk.

Citation still requested. Put up or shut up is the typical expression.

Cite: every homosexual ever.

Basically every single 'claim' I have made has been you not understanding me asking you to back up your own claims.

What do I not understand?

Yeah, I really doubt you actually conducted impartial and objective research here. And that isn't sarcasm.

I asked all of the ones I have ever met. Every single one. Well, some of them told me before I could actually ask.

If what I said was "irrelevent" then you should not have explained what is and is not legal in drinking. Did you really not expect me to mirror it to make a point?

:bang:

Sharia Law is all 'hypothetical'. Most Muslims I have encountered claim it has never been and claim it is not represented by any Muslim nation on the planet. But nonetheless, I could agree that its totalitarian and fascist roots certain make it far less than ideal.

How is it relevant?

Some states do. But even if they do, and are caught out on it - how does a state currently doing it mean that it is acceptable to do it even more?

You really are an idiot.

It is illegal in every state to molest children. The "state" [not states, moron] is mandating and controlling actions, forcing pedophiles to act against their own wills and desires. That is just one example.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that laws on freedom of expression would be around the corner for you.

Are we completely free to express ourselves in any way we so desire now?

Blah, blah, blah. Silly empty response.

That is what silly empty heads get.

I don't need to. You've already admitted you are a bigot.

I have admitted I am bigoted when it comes to certain things, you are trying to label me as a bigot according the the definition you desire when to do so would be a lie.

In what sense? If you see someone actually trying to molest a child, then I would argue you have every right to intervene. I don't think you could as a citizen at least, forcibly drag someone who simply pointed out their child molestation.

I don't get riled up enough to lay my hands upon a person who simply confesses. Now, if they begin to defend themselves as though it is perfectly okay, or even that they have that right, then I may not be able to control myself.

At any rate, there is no comparison between a couple in an open relationship and a child molester.

The molester is worse, clearly. But the point still stands. Your argument was flawed because it implied I could never do those things under any circumstances to anybody.

I just explained that. Again if I were to reveal two homosexuals who were to tell you they were deeply in love with each other and very happy together - you have told me you would consider them liars and value your own presumptions over their own words. What confidence do I have that you would not just disregard a homosexual claiming they have gone a month or 3 months without any sexual encounters of any kind? You could just accuse them of lying.

I know when someone is lying. Dr. Paul Ekman would call me a wizard. I've no idea why he decided on that term, though.

Then it was a pathetic and meaningless little point. Sterile couples cannot produce children either but they can still contribute.

They are exceptions to the rule, which is that heterosexual couples can produce children simply by having sex with one another. There are no exceptions to the fact that homosexual couples cannot.

I know this is what you believe. I somewhat suspect you would like to view all homosexuals as twisted, slavish, and incapable of love and happiness towards one another because it confirms your bigotry.

If you are a homosexual you are twisted, no matter how vanilla you are otherwise. Homosexuality is a perversion of the design.

Well that goes without saying. Another true statement is that people don't just change their opinions based on seemingly arbitrary and unbacked up assertions.

The willfully ignorant do not change their minds no matter what.

I only asked.

The first link suggests that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers (specifically wine). So just what I knew anyway.

Did I say otherwise?

What else do you tend to notice then?

Body language, including facial expression.

You already told me your answer to the analogy: yes.

Moron.

I said that if it were at all analogous then I would answer in the positive. But it was not. Not in any way.

 

[Skavau]

They censor their pornography. Even to the point of censoring things that are not defined as pornography, but still have sexual images. So they may go to extremes with their subject matter, but they censor all of it. Kind of defeats the purpose if you ask me.

I am sure Japan has many censors, but we're talking about a country that allowed a rape simulator as a video game (on possibly more than one occasion) and the home of 'hentai' (and all the sub-genres of that).

Yet they do fairly well. How about that? They haven't collapsed in on themselves.

They tell me I should be. But I'm sarcastic all the time.

Now, where are you going to point it out, whatever "it" is?

Pass. Maybe I missed a line on my original response to you. Perhaps I was just pointing out that my agreement to you calling me decieved was sarcastic (which it was anyway).

The amount I've met and not one runs contrary to what I have learned?

No, unsurprising that you claim you know how every homosexual in the planet, whatever their situation, wherever they are and whoever they live thinks and acts.

No, I would believe you that they said that. I just wouldn't believe them merely because they said it.

So you take my word that they said they could quit, but you would refuse to believe their sincerity. So again what would be the point? You'd just think that they are lying.

Detriment to the relationship is not detriment to the other person, as in injurious to them. Homosexuality puts others at risk.

How does homosexuality put others not involved in the consentual relationship at risk?

Cite: every homosexual ever.

That's not a valid citation. That's just being petty. I could say every fundamentalist I have ever met is rude and just type "Cite: every fundamentalist ever". At any rate, you've not met every homosexual ever nor do you know about every homosexual ever so it is a citation without merit. Try again.

What do I not understand?

That you can't just win debates by persisting in 'proof' without assertion. You have to back your claims up.

I asked all of the ones I have ever met. Every single one. Well, some of them told me before I could actually ask.

Again, I do not believe you. Your religious background and possible family experience seem to dictate what you think about homosexuals. Nothing more, nothing less.

/brick

If you don't have a point, why bother quoting?

How is it relevant?

Nothing. I was just talking about the failure that is Sharia Law.

It is illegal in every state to molest children. The "state" [not states, moron] is mandating and controlling actions, forcing pedophiles to act against their own wills and desires. That is just one example.

You are adept at deliberately misrepresenting what people say. I will clarify one thing first, because you don't really get it. I am not an American. When someone says 'state' to me, I think of 'nation'. I don't think of the blinking United States of America.

Now, you originally said that the state already mandates our actions. This is necessary to the extent of safeguarding civilisation. Not all actions and behavioural tendencies are managed or controlled to the same level in every single nation and some nations that impose it do it unjustly and on religious or fascist grounds. What you propose is the extension of prohibiting damaging behaviour to that of prohibiting lifestyle choices and nullifying personal liberty on the pretext of saving traditional society. I already said that limits on freedom of expression for the "good of all" are merely around the corner for you.

Are we completely free to express ourselves in any way we so desire now?

No. How would you change it (if at all)?

But technically, having thought about it (pun intended) - thought-crime can be proposed. You obviously need to find out by accident or by someone's admittance that they think a certain thing - but you would still be actually punishing them for thinking what they do when you found out.

I have admitted I am bigoted when it comes to certain things, you are trying to label me as a bigot according the the definition you desire when to do so would be a lie.

No, I truly believe you are a bigot in many ways.

I don't get riled up enough to lay my hands upon a person who simply confesses. Now, if they begin to defend themselves as though it is perfectly okay, or even that they have that right, then I may not be able to control myself.

Vigilantism. Not lawful. So no is the answer to your question.

The molester is worse, clearly. But the point still stands. Your argument was flawed because it implied I could never do those things under any circumstances to anybody.

You can tell people what you like and what you think of their lifestyle. But don't expect to be able to force them to stop. Not without criminal charges against you at the end of it, anyway.

I know when someone is lying. Dr. Paul Ekman would call me a wizard. I've no idea why he decided on that term, though.

I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever on your ability to pinpoint liars.

They are exceptions to the rule, which is that heterosexual couples can produce children simply by having sex with one another. There are no exceptions to the fact that homosexual couples cannot.

So? Neither can sterile couples. Again: so?

If you are a homosexual you are twisted, no matter how vanilla you are otherwise. Homosexuality is a perversion of the design.

As I said last time. This is what you want to believe.

The willfully ignorant do not change their minds no matter what.

Ironic that.

Did I say otherwise?

Yeah, I think you said 'heavy drinkers'. Could be wrong.

Body language, including facial expression.

Everyone notices that. Not really special.

I said that if it were at all analogous then I would answer in the positive. But it was not. Not in any way.

I'd love to hear how it was not analogous.

 

[Lighthouse]

I am sure Japan has many censors, but we're talking about a country that allowed a rape simulator as a video game (on possibly more than one occasion) and the home of 'hentai' (and all the sub-genres of that).

Yet they do fairly well. How about that? They haven't collapsed in on themselves.

Your point?

Pass. Maybe I missed a line on my original response to you. Perhaps I was just pointing out that my agreement to you calling me decieved was sarcastic (which it was anyway).


No, unsurprising that you claim you know how every homosexual in the planet, whatever their situation, wherever they are and whoever they live thinks and acts.


So you take my word that they said they could quit, but you would refuse to believe their sincerity. So again what would be the point? You'd just think that they are lying.


How does homosexuality put others not involved in the consentual relationship at risk?


That's not a valid citation. That's just being petty. I could say every fundamentalist I have ever met is rude and just type "Cite: every fundamentalist ever". At any rate, you've not met every homosexual ever nor do you know about every homosexual ever so it is a citation without merit. Try again.


That you can't just win debates by persisting in 'proof' without assertion. You have to back your claims up.


Again, I do not believe you. Your religious background and possible family experience seem to dictate what you think about homosexuals. Nothing more, nothing less.


If you don't have a point, why bother quoting?


Nothing. I was just talking about the failure that is Sharia Law.


You are adept at deliberately misrepresenting what people say. I will clarify one thing first, because you don't really get it. I am not an American. When someone says 'state' to me, I think of 'nation'. I don't think of the blinking United States of America.

Now, you originally said that the state already mandates our actions. This is necessary to the extent of safeguarding civilisation. Not all actions and behavioural tendencies are managed or controlled to the same level in every single nation and some nations that impose it do it unjustly and on religious or fascist grounds. What you propose is the extension of prohibiting damaging behaviour to that of prohibiting lifestyle choices and nullifying personal liberty on the pretext of saving traditional society. I already said that limits on freedom of expression for the "good of all" are merely around the corner for you.


No. How would you change it (if at all)?

But technically, having thought about it (pun intended) - thought-crime can be proposed. You obviously need to find out by accident or by someone's admittance that they think a certain thing - but you would still be actually punishing them for thinking what they do when you found out.


No, I truly believe you are a bigot in many ways.


Vigilantism. Not lawful. So no is the answer to your question.


You can tell people what you like and what you think of their lifestyle. But don't expect to be able to force them to stop. Not without criminal charges against you at the end of it, anyway.


I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever on your ability to pinpoint liars.


So? Neither can sterile couples. Again: so?


As I said last time. This is what you want to believe.


Ironic that.


Yeah, I think you said 'heavy drinkers'. Could be wrong.


Everyone notices that. Not really special.


I'd love to hear how it was not analogous.

I'm going to actually work on a precise response to the real issue at hand and get back to you.

As for the drinking thing, I did say, "heavy drinkers." But I never said those who drink lightly did not also live longer than teetotalers. Did you even read the stories? They also say that heavy drinkers live longer than light drinkers, iirc.

 

[Skavau]

Your point?

That there is no reason to believe that 'sexual perversion' can ruin a society. Adultery, homosexuality, pornography and fornication are all legal there.

 

[Lighthouse]

That there is no reason to believe that 'sexual perversion' can ruin a society. Adultery, homosexuality, pornography and fornication are all legal there.

1. Sunglasses
2. Earplugs

You seem to have all you need.

 

[Skavau]

1. Sunglasses
2. Earplugs

You seem to have all you need.

You believe that Japan is third-world?

 

[Lighthouse]

You believe that Japan is third-world?

You're a moron.

 

[Skavau]

I'm still waiting for you to explain away Japan.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm still waiting for you to explain away Japan.

There is nothing to explain away. You have once again assumed something that was never part of my argument. You have constructed a straw man.

 

[Newman]

I can't believe you two are still going. Props to Skavau for lasting this long. It's like making homemade ice cream, isn't it? You include all the right inputs, but all you get in return is sloppy, cold, and inconsistent.


Brandon, you've got to admit that you have libido dominandi, or, "leader fever" as I like to call it. You want to control, have authority, and force others to live a lifestyle that you think they should live. Whatever your intentions, be they Biblical, caring, and honest, you just can't do that. For one, people will resist your control. Two, forcing them into compliance contradicts the very principles you would claim as justifications for your control. And three, it denies the fundamental, inalienable, and natural rights of man: life, liberty, and property. I'm sorry buddy, but authoritarianism is always on the wrong side of history, and mainly for the three reasons I just listed.

 

[Skavau]

There is nothing to explain away. You have once again assumed something that was never part of my argument. You have constructed a straw man.

What have I assumed? It has been has it not, your constant claim that homosexuality, adultery, fornication and access to pornography are so damaging, so problematic that they ought to be banned for the good and safety of all in society.

And yet, we don't see this anywhere where it they are all legal.

 

[Nydhogg]

I want a government SO small that I can flay it alive, THEN drop it in acid.

I'm hard to pin down. I don't trust regulators (they're usually evil power-hungry thugs) but I don't trust the private sector's fat cats either (they're also evil, power-hungry thugs). They even wear the same uniform, the bureaucrat and the boss and the regulator and the would-be petty tyrant.

In short, every political position of mine can be derived of complete lack of trust towards authority.

 

[The Barbarian]

You vote libertarian? Good on you.

 

[Nydhogg]

You vote libertarian? Good on you.

I vote "least fascist viable political candidate".

Either anti-authoritarian liberals who oppose the war on drugs and assaults on free speech or anti-authoritarian conservatives who defend the Second Amendment and the people's right to employ themselves without stumbling through miles of red tape.

 

[Lighthouse]

What have I assumed? It has been has it not, your constant claim that homosexuality, adultery, fornication and access to pornography are so damaging, so problematic that they ought to be banned for the good and safety of all in society.

And yet, we don't see this anywhere where it they are all legal.

You assume that I mean societies and governments will fall immediately when these things are accepted, nee celebrated. And I mean no such thing. Rome lasted for quite some time. But where is their empire now?

 

[Skavau]

You assume that I mean societies and governments will fall immediately when these things are accepted, nee celebrated. And I mean no such thing. Rome lasted for quite some time. But where is their empire now?

Lol, and where are the Islamic Empires that didn't accept sexual perversion? In any case, there is no correlation whatsoever between sexual 'perversion' and empire rise or decline.

In anycase, you've set your position up as unfalisifiable. It is meaningless.

 

[chrysostom]

Lol, and where are the Islamic Empires that didn't accept sexual perversion? In any case, there is no correlation whatsoever between sexual 'perversion' and empire rise or decline.

In anycase, you've set your position up as unfalisifiable. It is meaningless.

the Christian Byzantine Empire lasted longer than any of them

is there any meaning here?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lol, and where are the Islamic Empires that didn't accept sexual perversion? In any case, there is no correlation whatsoever between sexual 'perversion' and empire rise or decline.

In anycase, you've set your position up as unfalisifiable. It is meaningless.

Are you really so stupid as to assume I meant to say sexual perversion is the only reason empires fall?