Why are you conservative, why are you liberal, why are you independent?

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Liberals want to ban things that are immoral. “

“We should ban homosexuals and abortion because they’re immoral. “

Classic StA

Straw man. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I did not argue we should ban homosexuals.

Banning abortion is the same as banning murder, so I don't know what you think you arguing there. Seems like you are trying to create an obtuse bulwark to your ridiculous straw man.

That's really the best defense liberals have for this lying. They can only lie about people calling them out on their lying. Liberals.

In the case of a crime of passion, or an obvious one-time murder, why do we punish/improson the offender?

For public safety, or morality?

[Speaker to Animals]

“Liberals want to ban things that are immoral. “

“We should ban homosexuals and abortion because they’re immoral. “

Classic StA

Straw man. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I did not argue we should ban homosexuals.

Banning abortion is the same as banning murder, so I don't know what you think you arguing there. Seems like you are trying to create an obtuse bulwark to your ridiculous straw man.

That's really the best defense liberals have for this lying. They can only lie about people calling them out on their lying. Liberals.

In the case of a crime of passion, or an obvious one-time murder, why do we punish/improson the offender?

For public safety, or morality?

No point discussing anything with you until you agree to stop lying about what I post.

Liberals lie. All the time. It's all about lying to hide the truth and lying about anybody who dares to speak the truth.

Agree to acknowledge what I actually said and stop lying and I will continue to discuss this with you.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Straw man. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I did not argue we should ban homosexuals.

Banning abortion is the same as banning murder, so I don't know what you think you arguing there. Seems like you are trying to create an obtuse bulwark to your ridiculous straw man.

That's really the best defense liberals have for this lying. They can only lie about people calling them out on their lying. Liberals.

In the case of a crime of passion, or an obvious one-time murder, why do we punish/improson the offender?

For public safety, or morality?

No point discussing anything with you until you agree to stop lying about what I post.

Liberals lie. All the time. It's all about lying to hide the truth and lying about anybody who dares to speak the truth.

Agree to acknowledge what I actually said and stop lying and I will continue to discuss this with you.

Sorry if you’re confused. Just summarizing your points, to make them clear.
Had to clear away a fair bit of double-speak.

[MilSpecs]

Again, how do we acknowledge that something is immoral?

By being truthful. When people say two dudes fucking each other in the ass "doesn't harm anybody else", you should speak the truth and deny the lie.

The way you get authoritarian laws is by pretending immoral behaviors are not harmful. That's when the proponents of these things have cause to demand laws be changed to protect the immoral behavior and to punish those who still refuse to pretend as if they don't harm people when they obviously do. Then you get more nanny statism because the degeneracy causes all sorts of social problems and costs that have to be mitigated, probably by the growing state.

So we should call out all sin when we see it? Because so far you've been pretty limited in calling out immoral behavior that harms society. Your list is very short and not even the most harmful stuff.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are lying, GCF. If you have to lie about what people said, then you lost the debate before you even started. It means you obviously don't have anything logical to say in defense of yourself, and are probably in the wrong.

Stop the lying.

[Speaker to Animals]

Again, how do we acknowledge that something is immoral?

By being truthful. When people say two dudes fucking each other in the ass "doesn't harm anybody else", you should speak the truth and deny the lie.

The way you get authoritarian laws is by pretending immoral behaviors are not harmful. That's when the proponents of these things have cause to demand laws be changed to protect the immoral behavior and to punish those who still refuse to pretend as if they don't harm people when they obviously do. Then you get more nanny statism because the degeneracy causes all sorts of social problems and costs that have to be mitigated, probably by the growing state.

So we should call out all sin when we see it? Because so far you've been pretty limited in calling out immoral behavior that harms society. Your list is very short and not even the most harmful stuff.

Stop trying to make this into a religious debate. You are flailing if you have to create that fucking smokescreen effect.

This is about morality. We are perfectly able to reason about these things without religion.

For example, docloliday tried to make the sexual liberation seem like some self-evident good that doesn't harm anybody. But it does. We have HUGE numbers of single mothers now raising thugs and degenerates, literally burning cities down across America. They soak up ever more public resources to pay for the consequences of sex outside of marriage. These are costs of immoral behavior that we all have to bear.

[MilSpecs]

Stop trying to make this into a religious debate. You are flailing if you have to create that fucking smokescreen effect.

This is about morality. We are perfectly able to reason about these things without religion.

For example, docloliday tried to make the sexual liberation seem like some self-evident good that doesn't harm anybody. But it does. We have HUGE numbers of single mothers now raising thugs and degenerates, literally burning cities down across America. They soak up ever more public resources to pay for the consequences of sex outside of marriage. These are costs of immoral behavior that we all have to bear.

You are wrong at the very foundation of your argument. Religion IS a moral code. Every society has had a different set of rules for the moral code. You're not even concentrating on the most important element of your own moral code. You're setting the part that most affects you front and center.

The libertarians have a better argument than moral purists during times of societal evolution of a moral code.

[Speaker to Animals]

You know liberals lost the debate when they try to make it into an attack on religion instead of the actual matter being debated.

[Kath]

This is nothing more than the STA Manifesto thread. Sheesh...... you don't need to write a novel to say the same thing over and over again. Nobody's buying what you are selling. Using more words isn't going to fix that.

[Fife]

.Ahem.

I thought some of you might enjoy something circling back a bit to the OP, when it comes to political labels and how we understand and use them.

Professor Claes Ryn on Tom Woods in 2015: Ep. 490 The Neoconservatives: Jacobins, Not Conservatives

The GOP and neocons are simply Jacobins.

Give this guy a listen and think about what conservatism means to you. I'd like to hear his current take on Trumpism and the Jacobins clamoring for blood in Iran and how many other dozens of places right now.

I really, really think there are several of us here who would dig this interview (Looking at you Nords, and Hastur especially ).

edit: I see this very recent piece by Prof. Ryn in the American Conservative. Gonna crack it open soon: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... d-it-most/