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

[TheReal_ND]

If you harmed yourself your little nieces and nephews wouldnt get the benefit of having a cool math teacher. Harming yourself has grrater consequences on wider society. If you drop your white knighting against puritanical prohibition for a second just imagine with me a society where decency laws were still on the books and jews hadnt successfully neutered them in the name of "free speech." That is a more wholesome society. Nobody's rights are being offended. Society is just sane.

[MilSpecs]

How do you suggest we go about letting everyone know what is Ok and not Ok? Just so we don't run the risk of pretending something is Ok when it's not.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's very telling that liberals of all stripes (including libertarians and neo-conservatives) actually believe that acknowledging something is immoral means it has to be banned.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of what morals are, really. To them, morals are just social conventions which probably should be controlled by law. They implicitly confirm this by clinging to this false dichotomy almost like irrational women.

The fact is, the only reason these degeneracies advance throughout society, and the only reason the proponents of the degeneracies are given the groundwork to create legal protections for it (and sanctions for people who won't participate in degeneracy) is because a huge percentage of the population are liberals who are perfectly willing to pretend like immoral behavior "doesn't harm anybody", even though that is a flagrant lie and they ought to know better.

You don't have to ban homosexuality to acknowledge that it's wrong. But the moment a plurality of people decided to pretend like it "doesn't harm anybody" was the moment the cultural marxists could claim homosexuals had a right to marry, had the right to demand to adopt Christian babies, had a right to run everybody out of business who still refused to play along with the lie.


You get nanny states by pretending as if immoral behavior doesn't harm anybody. I can't repeat this enough.

[MilSpecs]

Please elaborate and/or explain.

Type 2 is another disease that has genetic and psychological components. Maybe metabolic syndrome is a better analogy. Either way, we don't approach it from just the psychological side. If we can find out the genetic origin of the disorder, that would be a pretty big part of solving the problem. It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Some people can overeat and not get sick. Some people gorge and have huge difficulty controlling the urge. Some people don't eat much and still get sick. Some people can take or leave alcohol. Some people use once and the desire consumes them - something in their brain gets turned on.

There is clearly a genetic component to this, and I don't see why we can't approach these disorders from the medical end and with psychological help and social support. Just one of the three is more likely to fail.

Not sure why you chose the term eat their feelings. I'm 6'1" and 185 and have type 2. I don't eat me feelings.

Per above, some people don't eat much and still get sick. I'm sorry this happened to you and I hope they find a cure. You probably see for yourself at the doctor's office that a lot of people with diabetes are overweight and older. I don't think it makes sense to approach their diabetes purely from a counseling perspective. Finding the genetic component is important. Learning how to eat healthy is important. Dealing with the reason for overeating is important. A multifaceted approach to addiction has a better chance of success.

[MilSpecs]

It's very telling that liberals of all stripes (including libertarians and neo-conservatives) actually believe that acknowledging something is immoral means it has to be banned.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of what morals are, really. To them, morals are just social conventions which probably should be controlled by law. They implicitly confirm this by clinging to this false dichotomy almost like irrational women.

The fact is, the only reason these degeneracies advance throughout society, and the only reason the proponents of the degeneracies are given the groundwork to create legal protections for it (and sanctions for people who won't participate in degeneracy) is because a huge percentage of the population are liberals who are perfectly willing to pretend like immoral behavior "doesn't harm anybody", even though that is a flagrant lie and they ought to know better.

You don't have to ban homosexuality to acknowledge that it's wrong. But the moment a plurality of people decided to pretend like it "doesn't harm anybody" was the moment the cultural marxists could claim homosexuals had a right to marry, had the right to demand to adopt Christian babies, had a right to run everybody out of business who still refused to play along with the lie.


You get nanny states by pretending as if immoral behavior doesn't harm anybody. I can't repeat this enough.

Again, how do we acknowledge that something is immoral?

[Speaker to Animals]

It's very telling that liberals of all stripes (including libertarians and neo-conservatives) actually believe that acknowledging something is immoral means it has to be banned.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of what morals are, really. To them, morals are just social conventions which probably should be controlled by law. They implicitly confirm this by clinging to this false dichotomy almost like irrational women.

The fact is, the only reason these degeneracies advance throughout society, and the only reason the proponents of the degeneracies are given the groundwork to create legal protections for it (and sanctions for people who won't participate in degeneracy) is because a huge percentage of the population are liberals who are perfectly willing to pretend like immoral behavior "doesn't harm anybody", even though that is a flagrant lie and they ought to know better.

You don't have to ban homosexuality to acknowledge that it's wrong. But the moment a plurality of people decided to pretend like it "doesn't harm anybody" was the moment the cultural marxists could claim homosexuals had a right to marry, had the right to demand to adopt Christian babies, had a right to run everybody out of business who still refused to play along with the lie.


You get nanny states by pretending as if immoral behavior doesn't harm anybody. I can't repeat this enough.

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.

[MilSpecs]

Speak the truth where?

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Liberals want to ban things that are immoral. “

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

Classic StA

[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.

[Speaker to Animals]

Speak the truth where?

Whenever people ask you to agree that something immoral "doesn't harm anybody else".

None of this would have advanced to the stage we suffer from today had people just said no, you are wrong.