Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How about an olive branch?

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 9 months ago

User Journal 93

Sorry, statist sycophants, the worst is yet to come:

Sorry, statist sycophants, the worst is yet to come:

It's true that Obamacare has been a debacle, wrapped in a catastrophe, shrouded in a disaster. But it's also become clear that it was founded upon a lie: Obama's "if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it" statement was named by PolitiFact its lie of the year for 2013. Many Americans have already learned that their individual plans are being cancelled because they don't live up to Obamacare, causing enough chaos that the Obama administration has had to give certain people a last-minute "waiver" of the mandate that they buy insurance. But many more problems have just been kicked down the road -- into 2014 -- by Obama's unilateral decision. Ironically, the White House and Democrats were, just a couple of months ago, calling Republicans who wanted to delay the mandate anarchists and terrorists, and loudly proclaiming that Obamacare was "the law of the land." Regardless, the mandate delay doesn't solve problems, it just kicks the can down the road. And, as Bloomberg's Megan McArdle notes, the White House seems to be reacting to short-term political problems, rather than shoring up the system in ways that will make it work better:

However incoherent these fixes may seem, they send two messages, loud and clear. The first is that although liberal pundits may think that the law is a done deal, impossible to repeal, the administration does not believe that. ... This is at best, damage control. Which suggests that the administration is expecting a fair amount of damage.

I think that's right, and the damage will come in 2014. What we've seen so far, most likely, isn't the worst of it. Then there is the foreign affairs realm, where 2014 also looks to be worse than 2013. The Obamacare debacle did one useful thing for Obama: It drove the Syria debacle off the front pages. But Obama's precipitous decline in the polls didn't start with the Obamacare rollout; he was already slipping from the ineptitude displayed over Syria, where we went from "Syria Must Be Attacked!" to "Never Mind" in the space of three weeks. Obamacare -- and the NSA spying scandals, and the ongoing drip-drip of the IRS and Benghazi scandals -- has only made it worse.

If anyone has a heart for reform, the answer is going to come from http://conventionofstates.com/. We can pretty much write off anyone inside the beltway. Even if they retain some candle of integrity burning somewhere within, the fourth branch of government, the federal bureaucracy, isn't going to permit reform.
There really isn't any need to cling bitterly to the sinking ship of Progress, with its myriad of logical inversions. What matters is individual women, individual men, distinct families, and personal growth into mature humanity. Rule of law, balanced books, equality of opportunity, not condition. A rejection of the fascist Political Correctness that has claimed to bring unity, while sowing division.
I'll be working for the better next year, and I forgive those who've argued dishonestly with me, and ask forgiveness where others have thought me dishonest with them. I haven't been, but this is a medium that can breed confusion.
Cheers,
Chris

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who is "Chris"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45763631)

?

  Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

Re:Who is "Chris"? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45763995)

That would be me.

Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45763805)

An odd closing of no-really-I-don't-want-to-thank-anyone, there:

I forgive those who've argued dishonestly with me, and ask forgiveness where others have thought me dishonest with them. I haven't been, but this is a medium that can breed confusion.

Being as you are not the first conservative here to have decided to appoint yourself the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not honest argument, your statement is empty at very best. I could point out your continued avoidance of questions as evidence that you are not by a reasonable evaluation actually exhibiting honest discussion yourself, but that will likely fall on deaf ears here.

I do wish we could go back to having civilized discourse between us. I don't see how that could be restored at this point.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45763991)

your statement is empty at very best.
. . .
I do wish we could go back to having civilized discourse between us. I don't see how that could be restored at this point.

As you say. I don't feel I've ever been less than "civilized", but I can't be confident we're using the English language in the same way.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45764153)

As a blunt instrument is always best.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45764579)

As you say. I don't feel I've ever been less than "civilized"

When you insist on rejecting the words I write, and substituting instead the meaning that you want them to have - while simultaneously seldom shying away from an opportunity to sling a petty insult at me or other "leftists", you are not being civilized.

In a civilized discussion you need to drop your preconceived notion of the other person being obtuse or a liar. To be civilized you need to be willing to accept their words as being an accurate portrayal of what they mean. By that metric you have been far, far, from civilized.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45765783)

When you insist on rejecting the words I write, and substituting instead the meaning that you want them to have

This has been my point about your use of "homophobic rant" with respect to Robertson's words in GQ all along.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45765919)

When you insist on rejecting the words I write, and substituting instead the meaning that you want them to have

This has been my point about your use of "homophobic rant" with respect to Robertson's words in GQ all along.

So your point has been that you are willingly and intentionally rejecting the words that I write and substituting in your own meaning for them. OK, then at least we can agree on something here. I wish we could agree on something else, but at least we can agree that we have a complete failure to communicate due to a linguistic breakdown as you attempt to form a new standard for the English language where communication is based on distrust and suspicion rather than comprehension and understanding. This definitely helps to explain why when I answer questions you raise, you reject my answer - and when I ask you questions you give no answer at all.

This agreement makes this conversation pointless, though. I might as well give you the weather forecast for Tulsa.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45766783)

Except you are obtuse and a liar. Why is it the honest person is the one considered uncivilized, instead of the dishonest one?

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45767153)

I am genuinely interested in knowing what I said that you perceive to be a lie. I have told truthful things to smitty and he has responded with his opinion of what he wants to hear me say, rather than a response to what I have actually written. It appears you may well be doing the same.

If you believe that something I said was untrue, don't just call me a liar. Tell me what it is that you think to be untrue. Otherwise you are doing nothing to further any attempt at a conversation (and indeed only adding to the conservative echo chamber already present here).

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45767607)

If you get offended when a redneck quotes from the Bible, you *might* be intolerant.

You keep labeling courage fear, in support of the Most Favored Sin Status of Homosexuality. [blogspot.com] I'm snarky, I fight back with the heterophobic slur, but I fully admit it is a slur and not a truth. When are you going to admit to the big lie that homophobia is really just a slur and has nothing to do with actual fear?

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45767781)

You keep labeling courage fear

Courage? How is what he said in any way courageous?

Most Favored Sin Status of Homosexuality.

Yeah, you shared that link before. Some courageous conservative blogger comes up with a crafty new label and now it gets cited in discussions on conservative sites. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The problem though that you are overlooking when claiming homosexuality to be sinful - as pointed out earlier - is that the bible doesn't forbid homosexuality itself (specifically, it does not forbid loving others of the same sex); it only forbids homosexual acts (and an argument could be made that the bible actually only forbids men of the priesthood from those acts - clearly that prohibition has worked well for the Catholic Church).

homophobia is really just a slur and has nothing to do with actual fear?

He said he believes homosexuality to be "full of murder". Unless you are not afraid of murder, I don't see how that does not demonstrate fear.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45768273)

Courage? How is what he said in any way courageous?
 
In the same way students protesting against the Vietnam War was courageous- speaking up for truth in a time of lies is always courageous.
 
Whether a prohibition works or not, does not remove the reason for the prohibition. Things are taboo for a reason, idiots not following the taboo don't face that reason.
 
I'm not afraid of murder. I recognize in fact that many sins are murderous. My own gluttony is clearly a form of suicide. No need to fear that which we understand. There is still a reason for the taboo.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45768335)

Courage? How is what he said in any way courageous?

In the same way students protesting against the Vietnam War was courageous- speaking up for truth in a time of lies is always courageous.

How is legislating what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms in any way courageous?

Whether a prohibition works or not, does not remove the reason for the prohibition. Things are taboo for a reason, idiots not following the taboo don't face that reason.

That kind of rationale could have been applied to the ban on interracial marriage, the exclusion of women and minority voters, the institution of slavery, and any number of other things. All of those had biblical support when they were in place in this society.

I'm not afraid of murder.

Really? The thought of someone killing you doesn't bother you? So you would walk into the worst neighborhoods in Detroit or Chicago in the middle of the night without concern for your own safety? If so, good for you. I make decisions to try to extend my own life expectancy whenever possible. I know i won't live forever but that doesn't mean I need to expose myself to an early death either.

No need to fear that which we understand.

As in we understand that murder is generally quite painful, and that death is permanent? I guess if that comforts you then great but I see it as a good reason to try to avoid being murdered as much as possible.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45769929)

How is legislating what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms in any way courageous?
 
The quote had nothing to do with legislation at all. Only a heterophobe liar would think so.
 
  That kind of rationale could have been applied to the ban on interracial marriage, the exclusion of women and minority voters, the institution of slavery, and any number of other things. All of those had biblical support when they were in place in this society.
 
Yes, so? Doesn't mean that those things didn't have a reason to exist. It's only bigotry that we're against them now.
 
  As in we understand that murder is generally quite painful, and that death is permanent?
 
Not always.
 
  I guess if that comforts you then great but I see it as a good reason to try to avoid being murdered as much as possible.
 
Even going so far as to murder others to do it, yes, we know that.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45770011)

How is legislating what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms in any way courageous?

The quote had nothing to do with legislation at all. Only a heterophobe liar would think so.

You advocate for a prohibition on what people may do in their own bedrooms. How do you accomplish a prohibition without legislation? And why are you so anxious to apply a label to me? It doesn't help your cause any.

That kind of rationale could have been applied to the ban on interracial marriage, the exclusion of women and minority voters, the institution of slavery, and any number of other things. All of those had biblical support when they were in place in this society.

Yes, so? Doesn't mean that those things didn't have a reason to exist.

So then do you favor the restoration of slavery, the abolition of the vote for anyone who is not a white male, and a resurrection of the ban on interracial marriage?

As in we understand that murder is generally quite painful, and that death is permanent?

Not always.

There is no proven case of non-permanent death, ever. Period.

I guess if that comforts you then great but I see it as a good reason to try to avoid being murdered as much as possible.

Even going so far as to murder others to do it, yes, we know that.

If you find violence to be an acceptable answer, then I'm glad I don't live where you do. That said, you are only wandering further from my point of the fact that he stated he views homosexuality as being "full of murder". Being as rational people do fear being murdered on at least some level, it is perfectly reasonable to say that he is afraid of something that is "full of murder". Hence his statement expressed a fear of homosexuality and is a homophobic statement.

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45770659)

You advocate for a prohibition on what people may do in their own bedrooms. How do you accomplish a prohibition without legislation?
 
Religion works quite well, you should try it sometime.
 
  And why are you so anxious to apply a label to me?
 
Payback's a bitch, ain't it. I'm just doing to you what you do to others.
 
  So then do you favor the restoration of slavery, the abolition of the vote for anyone who is not a white male, and a resurrection of the ban on interracial marriage?
 
I can't deny society was better back then, much as I don't like those things, there WAS good reason for them.
 
  There is no proven case of non-permanent death, ever. Period.
 
Are you kidding me? It happens. It is rare, but it happens. [theweek.com]
 
  If you find violence to be an acceptable answer, then I'm glad I don't live where you do. That said, you are only wandering further from my point of the fact that he stated he views homosexuality as being "full of murder". Being as rational people do fear being murdered on at least some level, it is perfectly reasonable to say that he is afraid of something that is "full of murder". Hence his statement expressed a fear of homosexuality and is a homophobic statement.
 
I didn't say I find violence an acceptable answer- but your compatriots shouting homophobia apparently do quite often [youtube.com]

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45784231)

Religion works quite well, you should try it sometime.

No thank you! [news24.com] .

Re:Holier than whom? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45766779)

"Being as you are not the first conservative here to have decided to appoint yourself the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not honest argument,"

Phil Robertson, anybody? And who came up with political correctness to begin with?

Pot, Kettle, Black.

I think the real reason PR got it was because he touched the evil third rail of American politics: He dared question the Most Favored Sin status of homosexuality [blogspot.com]

Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45771159)

I think Christendom has just about had enough of these lying liars, no?

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45771189)

Yeah, pretty much. On the plus side, we can just rebuild after they die out. Just like we've done every time secularism has failed in the past.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45774325)

There is this idiotic cause (homosexuality) and non-effect (demographic cratering) relationship at work between secularism and our societal woes.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45775289)

Which is also the norm, they've all fallen in this way. The Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Austrian Empire, the empires of France, Spain, Germany, and England, all empires end in the sin of lust and demographic cratering. The details and names are different, but the process is the same.

And still the church survives.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45782755)

And still the church survives.

Yes, the preeminent psychologists they are... Fear rules, and nobody knows better how to scare people into, or out of, doing anything. Even all those ruling empires based their authority on the church and religion. They didn't fall for sins and lust. They fell because they were attacked and succumbed to the simple principle of might makes right. It's all proof positive of how overwhelming our animal/biological nature still is, and how little we have evolved towards becoming human.

"Demographic cratering".. This is precisely what you all are fearing, becoming a minority and losing your privileged status as the rule makers. But I do agree that majority rule is no way to run a circus. It is obsolete in this post scarcity world.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45782937)

Fear rules

You just don't know Christ.

"Demographic cratering".. This is precisely what you all are fearing

You just don't know math.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45783641)

You just don't know Christ.

Sez the extremist who twists the parables to rationalize bigotry.

"Demographic cratering".. This is precisely what you all are fearing

You just don't know math.

Oh, but I do [usnews.com] ! The message could not be more clear

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45790293)

Good for them. Homosexuals in a developing economy are traitors.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45791971)

And people who treat them with any less respect than they would give their own mother are treacherous and despicable. No man has any right to judge.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45792495)

No man has any right to judge.

Look: 2 + 2 != 5
You can attack my judgemental stance all day long, but there it is.
We cannot let this foppish, Postmodern cowardice turn into an acceptance of False as the new True.
Malarky is malarky; you know it's malarky, and there will be no improvement until we gird our loins and label malarky as such.
Now, there is some room for nuance in how one deals with malarky.
You can't write a "No Malarky" law and expect it, magically, to fix the malarky problem.
You CAN communicate the Truth in love, and gently await the audience's (a) recognition or (b) eventual, lamentable demise. "They's some men you just cain't reach," and we need to be patient about that.
I don't actually enjoy judging; I would there was less malarky about. But I do have an obligation to report on the fruit of the malarky, and make adjustments.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45803411)

There is no judgement involved at all. A developing country needs a growing population, spreading homosexual behavior and AIDS shrinks the population. Just cold hard fact.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45804195)

If you keep letting truth leak into the conversation, you're just never going to make it as a Lefty, boss.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45805323)

Show me one developing country that is underpopulated. This bigotry shall not stand. Your fear and hatred are not rooted in any truth aside from from your cultural dictates. Might makes right is still your MO. And that, sir, will forever remain subhuman, a mere reaction to one's environment.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45805435)

All developing countries are underpopulated. If they were fully populated, they'd have a robust, modern economy and not need as much manpower and physical labor.

There is a reason why atheism and homosexuality are things only rich people do. In a developing economy, especially an agricultural one, more children means more hands to help raise more food.

The only bigotry here is yours- bigoted against humanity.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45805553)

Conformity does not serve humanity. You need to learn respect for those who don't conform. What you want to create is an ant farm.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45806685)

No, an ant farm is the ultimate goal of Progress, with a little Ruling Class crust on top to offer further lies to keep the ants on the reservation.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45813909)

Has nothing to do with conformity. Has to deal with reality. Hard reality.

You can't escape biology, you can't escape physics, no matter how much you try to invent ways around it.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45815617)

You can't escape biology, you can't escape physics, no matter how much you try to invent ways around it.

I've been saying that since the very beginning, and that is precisely why you shouldn't judge and discriminate against others who don't conform to your cultural preconceptions of 'normal'. This is a biological issue, not the political one you are making it out to be for the purposes of repression. You seem to have this weird idea that a society that openly and completely accepts homosexuals will dump their spouses and become entirely gay. And of course you see the issue as entirely about sex and nothing else. I doubt you would think very highly of any law that prohibits autistics from getting married. Everybody has the same rights. You have no right to deny them because the pope told you that you should be offended.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45817283)

openly and completely accepts homosexuals

I accept all people as such, irrespective of any bad ideas they may espouse.
I don't espouse every bad idea that comes along.
I would that you could grasp this distinction between people and ideas.
It's kind of crucial.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45818813)

I accept all people as such, irrespective of any bad ideas they may espouse.

If you respect their right to a marriage contract and ALL the other privileges you enjoy and don't discriminate in any fashion at all, I'll believe that. Otherwise you're full of... malarkey, I think you call it. Your 'states rights' schtick indicates you are not so open minded.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45822329)

Nobody has a right to a marriage contract in the United States. No-fault divorce destroyed the idea of a marriage contract a long time ago- it is now a worthless piece of paper.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45825185)

Oh, no: What God hath joined, let no man put asunder.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45826377)

And every person's decision to join is god's will.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45827417)

Now you've veered into Calvinism.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45847879)

Nope, I said nothing of predestination. Whatever happens, and whatever exists is always god's will. There is no such thing as going against god, just like you can't violate the laws of physics.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45825177)

Wait. Why is MY opinion not respected? I could be wrong, but please show me the fine print: WHY am I wrong?

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45832513)

Opinions I respect. Acts of discrimination not so much.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45832639)

So, I have a *right* to vote, just as long as I don't cast a ballot?

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45847825)

You can vote for anything you want. You shall not put your bigotry into law.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45822323)

It is a biological issue. Homosexuality is a biological impossibility, a behavior engaged in only by idiots who don't know how reproduction works, or what sex is for. I'm offended not because of what the Pope says, but because I'm offended by stupidity.

The marriage bit has little to do with it, other than the fact that the government has no good reason to regulate marriage anymore- legal divorce destroyed the concept of marriage LONG before homosexuals tried to join in on something that was already destroyed anyway.

The government should have no say in sacramental marriage, and I will never accept homosexuality as being more normal and better than heterosexuality- for anybody, including the homosexuals.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45824609)

Sex is for... whatever we say it's for. It's definitely not for you or anyone else to decide for anybody else. You certainly have no right to dictate a person's biological predisposition. You are only illustrating why our species has yet to evolve beyond the talking chimp. And your post is a perfect example of plain old bigotry, one which you are perfectly welcome to voice as you wish, but must be removed and kept off the law books for good..

Marriage is nothing but a contractual non violent method of transferring property. It is a business contract that every consenting adult on the planet has a right to engage in. Sacramental marriage is a church thing, purely ceremonial, but the government has an obligation to recognize the matrimonial contract as long as the standard prerequisites (two witnesses, etc.) are met. That, or a civil signing ceremony can be performed at the courthouse. Your Jim Crow restrictions must be put down.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45825117)

You no sooner say

"You certainly have no right to dictate a person's biological predisposition"

than you say

"Marriage is nothing but a contractual non violent method of transferring property."

Consider a walk in fresh air an ponder that for a moment. And may the Almighty bless you with a no-nonsense ninja of a woman who imparts some wisdom.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45832289)

No, reality isn't "whatever we say". There is a specific function sex is for. You flunked biology 101.

And as for your business contracts- business is nothing more than fraud anyway.

The government has no obligation to recognize marriage at all, and any method they have of recognizing it is discriminatory against somebody.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45832391)

But but but how is government going to make society more better if it's not over-involved?

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45846043)

Government can't make society better at this point. Moral relativism has destroyed government to the point that it no longer knows what "better" is. Government, at this point, can only make society worse.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45832469)

Well, you flunk human 101. We are perfectly entitled to sex for pleasure as we see fit. You have no right to interfere in consensual acts.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45832547)

Actually, our government thinks it's way swell to legislate the *ahem* out of your *ahem*ing.
An awful lot of power to be gained thereby.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45832901)

Yeah, no thanks to your 'moral majority' there. It's time to actually separate government from its corporate masters, which includes religion.

Re:Preach it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45833231)

I do not mind admitting that conservatives got hit with some diabolical judo there.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45846085)

Good idea- get your government out of my church and make marital contracts illegal entirely, since it is clear that moral relativists don't know better from worse to begin with.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45847063)

As long there is money to made with the present situation, it won't happen. And the problems you describe are due to the absolutists who want to force conformity to their beliefs. And we've already discussed this, and you are still wrong.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45848577)

You are the one who is defining sex as being non-procreative and wanting to base a marriage on that, not me. It is your moral relativism that cannot be supported by biology or physics- and the proof of it is in the demographic decline.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45849057)

I am not defining sex at all, or basing marriage on anything except the right for anybody to join. You are all free to define them as you wish. You have no right to impose your definition of marriage or sex on others. I do not a tinker's damn if you find that offensive. I will always stand with those who demand their rights and freedoms to live their lives as they see fit without fear of the authoritarians. And yes, I am very well aware of yours and Smitty's fear of the "demographic threat" that might cost you your privileges of making rules for everyone else to obey. Leveling the playing field is always a good thing. Even Smitty says power should be distributed. I agree, as long as it's done evenly.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45849591)

So you're ok with people kidnaping 5 year olds to marry? After all, you're fine with the "right of anybody to join", and you haven't given a reasonable definition of "Consent".

Once again, it isn't me who is "imposing" a definition on you, it is basic biology.

People aren't free and never will be. We are limited by the limitations of our species, and that has nothing to do with your imaginary "authoritarians".

There are other judges than the ones who wear black robes. Some exist only in your head.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45849945)

...you haven't given a reasonable definition of "Consent".

Ah, so that's your game, eh? Well, in case you're serious. "Consent", in brief, means ...give permission for something to happen... or maybe ...permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.. I hope that helps..

There are other judges than the ones who wear black robes.

No man has any right to judge, precisely because of biology.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45850137)

And how do you prove "permission"?

Your own body will judge you, eventually.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45850487)

Your own body will judge you, eventually.

Yes, but YOUR body shall not...

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45852163)

Oh, it already is. My sin is gluttony- a slow form of suicide. And my back reminds me of this sin every morning since I turned 41.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45852353)

I meant your body, or anybody else's shall not judge me or mine, as I shall not ever judge you. I can tell you that homosexuality has not been proven to cause back problems, or any other problems, for that matter. Let nature judge people for their 'sins'.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45856293)

And I meant that your own body will judge you, because you fail to heed the advice of those older and wiser than you are.

As mine is, because I failed to heed the advice of those older and wiser than I was.

What you decry as authoritarian, is actually parental.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45857157)

My parents never pointed a gun at me.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45858775)

Gun, board with holes in it, timeout chair, what the heck is the difference?

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45859747)

They would have to throw the chair pretty hard to kill me with it.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45860759)

Discipline requires that you leave the kid alive, to learn the lesson.

Same with authoritarian governments. For the most part, they don't want to kill you. They want you to obey, usually for your own protection or for the safety of others.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45860887)

No, they want to steal your time and labor. Authoritarians are thieves. They steal lives.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45861469)

They want to CONTROL lives. Does them no good to destroy incentive entirely, it's hard to harvest labor from a man that has nothing to live for.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45861991)

Yes, they want to control lives for their own personal benefit. From their harems and opium dens they tell us we must suffer through our lives worshiping their false gods in a false promise of a nonexistent eternity. They are still thieves.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45879467)

Thus you admit that even in the worst case scenario, killing off all the citizenry is a bit counterproductive.

Eternity exists, whether you want it to or not. God exists, whether you want him to or not. These are the objective facts, why mess with your fantasy that only exists to enable antisocial behavior?

After all, when you get right down to it, that's what objecting to authoritarianism is all about. Daddy didn't let you do something, so like a three year old you're just throwing a tantrum.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45850509)

And how do you prove "permission"?

When the person says "yes, you may..." or "I do" Keep trying...

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45852173)

What if they are lying? Which, let's face it, often happens when sex is involved.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45852389)

Doesn't matter. Yes means yes, regardless. I mean,you can play 'he said-she said' all you want. Carry a tape recorder or have a written contract handy if paranoia strikes that deeply.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45856329)

Yes sometimes means no. In fact, quite often it means no, when hormones and other illicit substances are involved. Consent can be retroactively withdrawn, or just plain mistaken to begin with.

Written contracts are nice, but can be forged. A child, however, is forever.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45862027)

Legal mumbo-jumbo. You cannot retroactively withdraw consent after the act. The future is fluid. The past is not.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45862399)

You cannot retroactively withdraw consent after the act.

We are in the Age of Emotional Law, where, if you feel like you need to withdraw past consent, and have a fat pile of frogskins for the lawyers & judges, you most certainly can.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45862443)

Precisely my point when I said *Legal mumbo-jumbo*. The only thing real about it is the gun they use to persuade you.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45862785)

These are the people that feel reality is but narrative to be spun of whole cloth.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45862965)

Nothing beats simple laws of physics. The 'narrative' is always subjective.

Re:Preach it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45864299)

You're ultimately correct. But stand by for some intense pretzel-logic along the path.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45846055)

"Consensual" cannot be proven and does not exist. The only thing that matters is procreation, and since our government has lost sight of that, it is time for government to stop trying to regulate it at all.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45846987)

As long as government regulates the disposition of property, they have every right. And neither they or you have any right right to discriminate against those who don't conform to your religious beliefs. Extremely simple.

"Consensual" cannot be proven and does not exist.

You're making up nonsense as you go along. Do you believe that rapes cases have no validity? If two or more people consent to something, it is consensual.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45848557)

Marriage has nothing to do with the disposition of property anymore. Hasn't since no-fault divorce became an option.

Rape is non-procreative sex, and happens all the time. It isn't prosecuted that way because of the moral relativists like you.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45848867)

Both marriage and divorce determine how property is transferred.

Rape is prosecuted as a coercive, violent assault. Non-procreative sex is not against the law, nor should it ever be, again, regardless of your religious beliefs. If all those are partaking in it consensually, you should just butt out. It is none of your business. You have no right to meddle, and you have no right to them deny their same rights or privileges that you have. You simply are saying that might makes right.

Re:Preach it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 8 months ago | (#45848951)

It isn't I who is meddling- it is basic biology, and you can't escape the consequences of non-procreative sex merely by ignoring them. There is no need for a law- the laws are written into how our brains are wired, the punishment will come with no need for an external judge.

I have no need to pay for your crimes, that's all I care. Remove government from the process, and that solves the entire issue.

Besides, there is no property left in the United States worth protecting. It's all owned by the banks.

Re:Preach it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45850057)

...the consequences of non-procreative sex...

are man made, mostly resulting from prohibitions imposed by authoritarians. Even diseases would be almost inconsequential were it not for man's taboos. Treatment and cure would be much more accessible in a non discriminatory fashion. You're trying to make so that post menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to have sex since it won't produce a baby.

One of our more basic rights is the pursuit of happiness. You should take that to heart and respect our rights.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?