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

[doc_loliday]

You aren't seriously arguing that normalization and stigmas don't affect behavior, are you?

The principle is what is important. We strive for the principle of freedom. Once we go down the road of "this causes that, because some people have done this" then we're no better than the SJWs.

[doc_loliday]

The only way we keep real freedom is by respecting individual rights. The religious think the gays are immoral, the gays think the religious are immoral. Both camps are responsible for some abuse, but it doesn't mean they should have their freedoms curtailed because those actions don't necessarily follow from those freedoms. That line of reasoning is as non-sequitur as it gets.

[doc_loliday]

Wanting to cut off your dick has got to be the definition of nuts, but allowing self harm isn't about normalization anyway. As I have said from the beginning, it's about allowing self harm. Not caring is not the same as preferring.

And even though there are always people who will try to use their power to inflict abuse, we can't let that be a reason to limit freedom, lest we become hypocrites, or even jeopardize our own freedom. Indoctrinating children with the idea that dick cutting is okay is also wrong. The government has no business talking to children about the subject and we must therefore resist that too. Freedom can actually suck in that regard. We have to constantly fight on two fronts.

[Speaker to Animals]

However, when you pretend like it doesn't cause harm, that it's not immoral, you provide the groundwork for transgender activists to start creating legal protections for that practice. Which means legal punishments for people who don't want to play along. It means you get booted from your university because you don't want to call Steve a "she".

Non-sequitur. One doesn't cause the other. For example the Catholic Church has historically led to child rape, but it doesn't cause it. You'll never get me to see it differently.

This is what happens when you let the hypocrites moralize. They drone on about demographic winters, but do nothing themselves. They bleat about sex out of marriage but they do it themselves. Actions speak way louder than words.

Yawn.

You aren't seriously arguing that normalization and stigmas don't affect behavior, are you?

For 24 hours now, that is exactly what he has done.

[jediuser598]

Show of hands.

Who actually believes that acknowledging immoral behavior as being in fact immoral is tantamount to wanting a nanny state.

Because gay marriage is immoral?

Excellent example.

Sodomy is immoral.

When a significant percentage of the population adopted the attitude that "it does not harm anybody else" (a flagrant lie), gays decided they needed legal protections and social punishments for any holdouts that refused to pretend like sodomy was anything but immoral. Then because everybody was pretending it was perfectly fine, they had the basis to argue for gay marriage. Once that was in place, they needed ever more state power to punish anybody who didn't play along with that new development, including shutting people out of commerce, business, and even jobs and university programs.

The way you get a nanny state is by pretending immoral behavior "doesn't harm anybody else".

There exists a direct line between people in the late 90s and early 2000s arguing homosexuality "doesn't harm anybody" and the leviathan anti-freedom laws now in effect.

And that's not even accounting what has to be constructed to mitigate all the harm that homosexuality inflicts upon our society. That's whole separate level of nanny statism.


Had we just kept it with, sodomy is wrong, but it's not worth punishing people for it, we'd never have gotten to this point.

Sodomy isn't wrong.

Your religion says it is wrong, and normalizes stigmas towards it.

I don't really differentiate between you and say the Muslim who thinks women should wear burkas. They could be in here arguing the same exact thing. "How dare you say, women showing skin doesn't harm anything! That's immoral, they should be covered head to toe!"

[GloryofGreece]

You go out of your way to refuse to acknowledge a damned thing I said and then straw man me with this ridiculous you want a nanny state!! farce.

I want to acknowledge that these things are immoral so that they don't get encouraged. So that they don't get state sanctioned. So that we don't end up with more nanny state to clean up the harm they inflict upon society and an authoritarian state to force everybody to play-pretend these things aren't the immoral acts that they are.

Just stop pretending like this shit "doesn't hurt other people" when it obviously does. Once you stop pretending immoral acts are moral, nobody can demand that the government protect that behavior, or codify it with legal contracts and protections, and you won't end up with a fucking police state to clean up the consequences.

If we all decide it's not worth controlling, we can live and let live. But we should NOT pretend like it's okay.

This is generally how I feel about out of wedlock children and kids without two active parents. I know single parents can and do manage sometimes even better than two parent homes, but I've see way too many students with no father contact and/or living with their great aunt, grandma etc. to think society should turn a blind eye to it or not even acknowledge that it is not ideal/optimal. I'm just confused as what we should do legally and politically about it really.

[TheReal_ND]

[TheReal_ND]

Because gay marriage is immoral?

Excellent example.

Sodomy is immoral.

When a significant percentage of the population adopted the attitude that "it does not harm anybody else" (a flagrant lie), gays decided they needed legal protections and social punishments for any holdouts that refused to pretend like sodomy was anything but immoral. Then because everybody was pretending it was perfectly fine, they had the basis to argue for gay marriage. Once that was in place, they needed ever more state power to punish anybody who didn't play along with that new development, including shutting people out of commerce, business, and even jobs and university programs.

The way you get a nanny state is by pretending immoral behavior "doesn't harm anybody else".

There exists a direct line between people in the late 90s and early 2000s arguing homosexuality "doesn't harm anybody" and the leviathan anti-freedom laws now in effect.

And that's not even accounting what has to be constructed to mitigate all the harm that homosexuality inflicts upon our society. That's whole separate level of nanny statism.


Had we just kept it with, sodomy is wrong, but it's not worth punishing people for it, we'd never have gotten to this point.

Sodomy isn't wrong.

Your religion says it is wrong, and normalizes stigmas towards it.

I don't really differentiate between you and say the Muslim who thinks women should wear burkas. They could be in here arguing the same exact thing. "How dare you say, women showing skin doesn't harm anything! That's immoral, they should be covered head to toe!"

If sodomy wasnt wrong your asshole wouldnt prolapse after railing cockand contracting grids.

[Okeefenokee]

You aren't seriously arguing that normalization and stigmas don't affect behavior, are you?

The principle is what is important. We strive for the principle of freedom. Once we go down the road of "this causes that, because some people have done this" then we're no better than the SJWs.

I've just been popping over to see the back and forth now and then, but it seems pretty clear to me that Speaker has said at least once that he isn't looking for any curtailment of anyone's ability to make their own choices, but you have responded multiple times to him, and now to me, as though you think someone is calling for the morality police to lock people up for cornholing.

GoG summed it up similarly,

If we all decide it's not worth controlling, we can live and let live. But we should NOT pretend like it's okay.

This is generally how I feel about out of wedlock children and kids without two active parents. I know single parents can and do manage sometimes even better than two parent homes, but I've see way too many students with no father contact and/or living with their great aunt, grandma etc. to think society should turn a blind eye to it or not even acknowledge that it is not ideal/optimal. I'm just confused as what we should do legally and politically about it really.

[doc_loliday]

I've just been popping over to see the back and forth now and then, but it seems pretty clear to me that Speaker has said at least once that he isn't looking for any curtailment of anyone's ability to make their own choices, but you have responded multiple times to him, and now to me, as though you think someone is calling for the morality police to lock people up for cornholing.

I agree that his later posts have come to agree with my original point.

In fact the nature of his argument changed into that because I kept hammering the point of causation. If you read the thread you'd see, his initial post was arguing that when people hurt themselves, they actually hurt the community, so my live and let live philosophy was a "lie". Letting people fornicate leads to disease. Not caring about what gay people do causes the businesses to be shut down. Once his argument changed from "what level of sanction" to simply "not tolerate it", on some personal level, I twice said that we were in agreement. He vehemently disagreed on that point because I wouldn't acknowledge immoral behavior. Who cares what its called?

Even now, my claim is that we should allow people to harm themselves. But he couldn't let that go. Again, this was called a lie, because this harms society, safe sex causes demographic winter, blah blah blah.


Me from the beginning:

The definition of those words change over time, now more than ever, so I think its hard to answer the question. Letting people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else is popular to say, but do the conservatives get to claim that stance or liberals? 10-20 years ago, I would have said liberals, but now that conservatives are finding their rights being taken, they are being forced into accepting behaviors that they never would have when they had cultural dominance. But as far as I'm concerned neither group really champions all personal rights; as soon as they get power they use it to strip the freedoms of those they personally disagree with. Who advocates for the freedom to do drugs, have sex, and get married to whomever? Who calls for the freedom of association, to do business with or discriminate against for any reason? Who calls for the freedom to speak unpopular or hateful things? I don't have to agree with many of those things, but its not the governments place to tell people they can't live a traditional life, or fly the freak flag.

My first post. I acknowledged that the behavior was harmful and that I didn't have to agree with it. My first post is when DSL flew off the morality handle.


Sta:

That's the lie, though. They always claim we should liberalize something because it doesn't hurt anybody else. Yet it does end up hurting everybody else. Fornication leads to the spread of diseases. Abortion, if you won't admit you are killing a human being in the process, wipes out the entire social welfare system of a nation by slowly inverting the demographic pyramid. Remember when they argued that we should let homosexuals marry because it won't affect anybody else? That lasted all of about, what, six to eight years before they started trying to shut people's businesses down and run people out of their jobs?

There really is no such thing as "it doesn't harm anybody else" with moral matters. Everything that is immoral harms us all. The question is not whether we should legalize and approve of it. The question is what level of sanction or disapproval should we apply?

This applies to economics as well.

I don't care for these round about, it will end up hurting society arguments. I care about what actually harms society. Forcing bakers to sell cakes it what hurts society, not two dudes kissing.


Me again:

I never pretended it was good. If people want harm themselves I don't care. Just keep the harming to yourselves. If you want to shoot dope, I don't care. Don't throw your needles on the ground, or there will be consequences. If you want to drink booze, go for it, just don't drive later or beat your kids. If you want to fuck, and disease yourself I don't care about that either. If you blast guns, go for it, just don't shoot people. If you can do any of those activities without the consequences spilling over, all the more power to you.

If his point was about tolerating harmful behavior, we would be in agreement as I tried to suggest.

After hammering the point about it not being logical to blame a particular bad behavior on the causation of further bad behaviors, somewhere around page 11 the nature of the argument changed, and when I again suggested that we were in agreement he vehemently denied we were.

Even now, I'm willing to suggest that we are in agreement with my original point. We should have the freedom to do business with whomever we want, we should be able to have relationships with whomever we want, we should be able to smoke pot, drink alcohol, and shoot guns, as long as we don't hurt other people. That is my original, controversial point.