What is something truly sad happening in your life? I've lost close and dear relatives but that doesnt put me away from what I think. Crazy.. I understand and can accept how you all get your pleasure and happiness from certain things, but you seem to be unable to understand how other people may get pleasure and happy feelings from other things. oh well everyone his life philosophies. and no I was not joking about the cruelty. Tiki
Oh no, I can understand it alright. I even have a word for it: immoral. But I guess that's all "bullshit" to you. Okay, fine. ps -- thankfully, people with your "philosophies" are the distinct minority in this world. I would love to wish you a 'happy' weekend, but I dread to think what that may mean to you. Perhaps in your world the appropriate farewell to a 'competitor' is something like, "kill you later"?
ha ha no, immoral is exactly how to describe it! a happy weekend to you! (kill ya later, alligator!) Tiki
most of these arguments against sex are so much silly nonsense. stimulating pleasure centers is all we're talking about here, nothing more profound than stimulation of physical skin sensors located on very small portion of anatomy. BIG DEAL! and if I want to pay for this SO WHAT!! WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I CAN'T!? Or why should you even care what i or someone else does in private??! YOU pay for massages dont you? But this is OK isnt it ..HA! It is only MONEY and ONLY SENSORY STIMULI, present in all animals. You dont see them making this a big deal, they just enjoy. so should we, so christians get lost!! DUH!! :-/
I bet the hookers you date get really hot when you describe sex. Then again, since it is only sex and nerve endings and not about love and intimacy, you probably save your money and stimulate your pleasure centers up your dog's backside.
The thing I disagree with is forcing someone to change their behaviour on their own private property - it is their space, their home, so they should be left in peace. I have no problem with you placing restrictions on how people behave on your own property. You're quite entitled to form a group, buy up some land, and turn it into a Christian community - that way, no one is forced to buy or rent a place there who does not agree to abide by your rules. But I should be able to do the same somewhere else, and not have to abide by *your* rules. Under the current situation, people can effectively gain property rights over your land & home without you ever agreeing to it. The system of voting, and imposing community standards at the ballot box, effectively takes away your ownership of your own land. I don't see how that is fair at all. I never agreed to give anyone else control over my house, or agreed to restrict my behaviour in my own home. So where do other people get the jurisdiction to tell me how to act on my own property? It's not like I am actively harming anyone. So I would simply ask, why can't you form the community of your choice without using the law to forcibly threaten people who are doing no harm? Why not form the community of your choice using voluntary and peaceful means, instead of brute force. That way everyone can have their own preferred area and lifestyle - if you want strip joints and drugs, you go to the neighbourhood where that is permitted by the land owner(s); if you want peace and quiet, go to a respectable neighbourhood where the landowning group prevents seedy activities and businesses. That's what a free country is all about.
Why can't I argue that? If I can demonstrate that certain government regulation contradicts an agreed principle of morality, whereas other government regulation does not, then I can successfully argue that there *is* a clear dividing line, in moral terms, between different government actions. I would put forward the moral principle that it is wrong to punish or otherwise knowingly harm a person who has done no wrong. An action either falls into this category or it does not - there is little or no "middle ground". If you accept it is ok for the government to deliberately hurt innocent people against their will, then that would clearly contradict the principle I put forward. You would then have to explain why you think that the principle is invalid - why deliberately hurting innocent people is ok. If you do disagree, then that would then be a clear difference of principle, not of degree. It would be a matter of having entirely different and irreconcilable world views, not just being "slightly to the left" or right of each other.
Firstly, my "Nazi" response was in reply to ART, who suggested that "the government has the right to tell people what to do with their bodies", because the government receives rights to do anything it likes as long as it wins an electoral vote. This means they have the right to tell you to cut out your organs and donate them to save lives, something I and almost all civilised people find reprehensible. As for abortion, my view is similar to yours. If a woman decides to have sex, knowing the possible consequences, then she's responsible for the life she creates. She can do what she likes to her body, but can't do what she likes to the body of the unborn baby within her - the foetus, once it becomes a human life, is entitled to protection like any other human life. Thus standing by whilst an abortion is carried out is just like standing by whilst an infanticide or murder is carried out - the only difference is that the abortioneer & mother generally don't think they are committing murder. Thus they should be treated like an insane person or a very young child who doesn't realise that stabbing someone is harmful - they should be restrained from doing the activity, but not punished to the extent that a knowing criminal would be. This has nothing to do with the government having total control over your body - it is simply preventing people from killing living beings.
You are repeatedly mischaracterising other people's positions. Society is far less libertarian in the last 30-40 years than it was 200+ years ago (unless you were a slave, black, or native American). The last 30-40 years have seen a huge increase in invasive regulatory laws governing social, economic, and personal conduct, and vast growth in the size of federal, state and local government, so it is the exact *opposite* of libertarian principles which have brought about the change in the last 4 decades. Secondly, libertarian philosophy has a view on abortion to the extent that a foetus is considered a human life or not - if it is, then abortion clearly violates the libertarian principle of non-aggression (except maybe in rape cases); if it is considered just a bit of the woman's body, like a toe nail, with no separate life, then abortion would be acceptable. Thus you get libertarians who are strongly in favour of or against abortion - but it is based on empirical judgement as to the life status of a foetus, rather than emotional dogma. An intellectually honest libertarian will accept the pro-life position if you can convince them that a foetus is "human life". Third, humanist and libertarian philosophy have no direct link. There are many religious libertarians, which is not surprising since libertarian views are based on robust defence of people's rights, tolerance, refusal to use violence except in self-defence, and other strong moral views quite close to those of religious people. Neither humanist nor libertarian philosophy necessarily approves of "unvirtuous" behaviours. They simply assert that those behaviours should not be treated as *crimes*. That does not mean they are remotely desirable or likeable. Allowing someone the right to do something silly or harmful to themselves does not imply any approval of that action. Many libertarians are strongly opposed to taking drugs, just as they are strongly opposed to people killing themselves, however they believe they only have the right to discourage this behaviour through persuasion and social pressure, rather than depriving the unfortunate person of their liberty or otherwise inflicting physical punishment on them. What is so bad about that?
I think we may be disagreeing actually on less than we think when it comes down to a case by case basis: 1. First of all, I generally agree with you on what you do on your own property is your own business. If I'm honest for example, I can't think of a good argument (that is non-religious) against polytheism. 2. Now personally I would legislate on a state level against communal living cuzz I think it's a bad idea for kids and I think the psych studies have shown that. I say go to another state if you want to try that. Is this enforceable and definable? Probably not. So would it be worth legislating against? Probably not. 3. Prostitution. I would join all the non-Christians in voting against this. There's no psych data, but I think "common sense" wins out. 4. Drugs. I would still always vote against any addictive drug in my state. If it's addictive, it will end up hurting society at large. I admit I have no great argument against pot - no better than I would against alchohol. 5. Strip Joints and Adult Bookstores. Should be on a community level and far away from residences. (fyi: I've got 4 within 5 miles of my residence and they're very close to many homes in the area.) I actually think communites should be able to close these down (with a time frame given of course). Again, I have heard of big cities that have reduced crime by getting rid of these in a given area. 6. Gambling. I'm fairly neutral on this because I don't know enough about it. I suspect gambling addiction is a bigger problem than people think, but I have no data to back it up. Again, though, I think the states have the right to decide. Now is this drastically different from yourself?