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

[Speaker to Animals]

To wit: when you claim something "doesn't harm other people", then you literally are claiming that something is not an immoral issue. That is the problem with liberalism that leads to all this degeneracy, suffering, and social decay.

To claim that something is immoral but doesn't harm other people is a contradiction. Everything that is immoral in some way harms others. That's why it is immoral.

That you tried to equate moral issues with the ludicrous anti-gun mentality of the left tells me that you don't really have a very good grasp on morality in the first place. It seems as if you just view morals as a collection of social values you inherit from society, malleable, etc. In fact, morals derive from reason applied to human nature. Anything that negatively impacts other people is immoral to some extent, depending upon the severity of the impact. Here we don't mean offense or discomfort but, rather, a genuine cost or hardship.

Most of the things liberals of all stripes champion as "not harming anybody" have harm you can probably measure in dollar figures and ruined lives, so we are nowhere near the "cause offense" threshold.

Dude, I don't care if people harm themselves. Fuck off already with your collectivist marxist nannying nonsense.

My collectivist marxist nannying??

I am trying to stop the nannying, you twit. Every advance of immoral behavior as "not harming anybody" has resulted in the infringement of our rights and freedoms. When you say homosexuality is not wrong because it doesn't harm anybody (a big lie), the logical consequence of that is to allow things like gay marriage. Then people want legal and social rights associated with their immoral behavior. They want to punish anybody who dares to acknowledge that behavior as immoral. Freedom dies as a result.

The consequences of moral license is authoritarianism. Every fucking time, dude. YOU are the one bringing this shit to life, not me. I am trying to shake some sense into you.

Refusing to pretend something is moral when it is really immoral is not the same thing as wanting to control the immoral behavior via the nanny state, but once you start pretending moral falsehoods, the nanny state advances to maintain the falsehoods. Every time.

[doc_loliday]

What if a guy was holding a gun and it accidentally went off and he killed himself, and then the single mother became a ward of the state and was so grieved that she couldn't bear to have more children and therefore helped contribute to the demographic winter?? Can't you see he owes it to society to not engage in any activity that has any kind of risk? Jesus you guys. Can't you see the only way we can have freedom is by taking it away?

[Speaker to Animals]

What if a guy was holding a gun and it accidentally went off and he killed himself, and then the single mother became a ward of the state and was so grieved that she couldn't bear to have more children and therefore helped contribute to the demographic winter?? Can't you he owes it to society to engage in any activity that has any kind of risk? Jesus you guys.

What if a guy is driving across the bridge, his tire blows out, and he fucking plunges into the river to his death??? Ban all cars. They are therefore immoral.

Just listen to yourself, man.

[doc_loliday]

What if a guy was holding a gun and it accidentally went off and he killed himself, and then the single mother became a ward of the state and was so grieved that she couldn't bear to have more children and therefore helped contribute to the demographic winter?? Can't you he owes it to society to engage in any activity that has any kind of risk? Jesus you guys.

What if a guy is driving across the bridge, his tire blows out, and he fucking plunges into the river to his death??? Ban all cars. They are therefore immoral.

Just listen to yourself, man.

Are we doing role reversal now?
I was doing my best impression of you.

[Speaker to Animals]

I can't spell this out for you any clearer than this: if you don't want the nanny state, then STOP pretending like immoral shit is "not harming anybody else" when it is by definition.

Acknowledging something is immoral is not "nannying" people.

Pretending like an immoral behavior is "not harming anybody else" is literally the same as saying it's not immoral. Once you do that, you give license for that behavior. That means you need more social programs to cover the negative costs of the behavior. It means the state has to step in to force everybody to maintain the illusion that the immoral behavior is okay. Nanny state central.

[doc_loliday]

I may go crack open a beer. Stand by for societal meltdown.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are faced with an immoral act. You have two options:

(A) Acknowledge it is immoral.

(B) Pretend like it is moral.


If you choose (A), your options are (1) to tolerate it but disapprove of it, and apply social costs to the behavior as well, or (2) to not tolerate it (i.e. to criminalize it). For most of this garbage you guys want to normalize, option (1) was always the best route. That's not the nanny state. That's the opposite of the fucking nanny state.

If you choose (B), guess what? Now this person needs state protection from all the social bullies that want to "discriminate" against their totally normal behavior. That's the nanny state. That's authoritarianism. Then there are the actual costs inflicted by the immoral behavior. We all have to pay for those. We have to provide clinics for all the heron addicts. We have to endure streets littered with AIDS-infected needles. We have to deal with violent crime and burglaries. We now need to tax more money to pay for all this shit. We need more cops too. More authoritarianism.

Hmm..

Who's the guy in favor of the nanny state again? It's not me.

[doc_loliday]

I agree that you believe that with all your heart. I am sure many Catholics do too. But I fundamentally disagree with your premise and I disagree with your options anyway. We don't have to pay for their behavior. That's where you are wrong. Nobody ever said we have to enable addicts. You seem to think its some law from God that we have to put up with their behavior. I disagree with the core premise. And you act like our tax money is being wasted because drugs are legal and that somehow if drugs were deemed immoral we'd save tax payer money. They are already illegal and deemed immoral we are paying for them now. Its a non-sequitur.

I don't care what you call immoral, it is irrelevant to me. I don't care if somebody gets stoned and somehow doesn't contribute fully to society. I don't care if two people get tested and then have sex with condoms. I just don't care. I'm not going to ban their behavior and you'll never make me acknowledge that it is objectively immoral in some cosmic sense.

[Hwen Hoshino]

You are faced with an immoral act. You have two options:

(A) Acknowledge it is immoral.

(B) Pretend like it is moral.


If you choose (A), your options are (1) to tolerate it but disapprove of it, and apply social costs to the behavior as well, or (2) to not tolerate it (i.e. to criminalize it). For most of this garbage you guys want to normalize, option (1) was always the best route. That's not the nanny state. That's the opposite of the fucking nanny state.

If you choose (B), guess what? Now this person needs state protection from all the social bullies that want to "discriminate" against their totally normal behavior. That's the nanny state. That's authoritarianism. Then there are the actual costs inflicted by the immoral behavior. We all have to pay for those. We have to provide clinics for all the heron addicts. We have to endure streets littered with AIDS-infected needles. We have to deal with violent crime and burglaries. We now need to tax more money to pay for all this shit. We need more cops too. More authoritarianism.

More authoritarianism.

What? Why? So you can push your utopian agenda?

[Speaker to Animals]

I agree that you believe that with all your heart. I am sure many Catholics do too. But I fundamentally disagree with your premise and I disagree with your options anyway. We don't have to pay for their behavior. That's where you are wrong. Nobody ever said we have to enable addicts. You seem to think its some law from God that we have to put up with their behavior. I disagree with the core premise. And you act like our tax money is being wasted because drugs are legal and that somehow if drugs were deemed immoral we'd save tax payer money. They are already illegal and deemed immoral we are paying for them now. Its a non-sequitur.

I don't care what you call immoral, it is irrelevant to me. I don't care if somebody gets stoned and somehow doesn't contribute fully to society. I don't care if two people get tested and then have sex with condoms. I just don't care. I'm not going to ban their behavior and you'll never make me acknowledge that it is objectively immoral in some cosmic sense.

You do have to pay for it. You pay for it through taxes for more police. You will pay for it directly as a victim of crime. You will pay for it in the form of lowering standard of living as society disentegrates. If your daughter becomes a drug addict and dies, you will pay for it in the form of a terrible painful burden you will carry to your grave.

Your trying to make this about religion is more flailing. You are trying to avoid admitting the obvious truth: there exists no such thing as an immoral behavior that does not harm others.