Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:31:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1948 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > You're "all for" sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only
> > certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right?
>
> Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to
> advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There
> is no difference except in degree.
The line that I draw is at victimization. That's not arbitrary. If no one is being victimized then what they're doing is OK. I'm not offended by either incest or bestiality aside from the difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Why should I be? If brothers and sisters or horny teenage girls and their german shepard studs want to screw, what's it to me?
> > To start, I'm assuming that you agree with American Heritage in that the
> > nuclear family is "A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their
> > children."
>
> Of course. Do you have another definition?
I was just trying to establish that we were on the same page.
> > As recently as three generations ago, the nuclear family as a self-contained
> > unit was newish. I don't assume that the nuclear family is the ultimate
> > peak of social development. I also don't believe that society is in any
> > meaningful way "built" upon the nuclear family.
>
> Well, ours is, and so is Western Culture in general.
What was it built on 100 years ago? 1000? Dude, it takes a village.
> It wouldn't be the same society we have now. I like it the way it is, and I
> don't want to change it. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. You are
> going to have to live with it or leave, because nobody wants to change to
> accommodate {your} vision of society.
So it's perfectly OK for you to impose your personal aesthetic (that is not
arguably superior in any measurable way) through legislation on everyone else
just because you're in the majority?
> > > If you really believed we are animals, you would
> > > notice that this survival strategy is pervasive in nature.
> >
> > Pardon?
>
> Many species mate for life. There are good reasons for it {other} than
> bigotted religious ones;-)
Most do not. And anyway, they do it because their instinct dictates, right?
Shouldn't we be able to go beyond that?
> > No. Being human isn't about anything at all.
>
> Pardon?
Well, since there is no creator, there is no intent. With no intent, there is
no "about." The up side is that we get to -- each of us, decide what being
human (and even alive) is about for ourselves. The down side is that we have
to. I'm sure things look different to someone of your strange belief structure.
> > All organisms "control" their
> > destinies as much as they are able.
>
> Pardon? "Control"? Animals have no control-- they are governed by instinct.
That's patently absurd. You are, if I get you right, claiming that every other
animal on earth is merely a simple robot, but humans alone have the divine
spark. That we have all of self-determination. Right? There is absolutely no
evidence for such a notion whatsoever. I must ask John, have you ever even seen
an animal? I'm perfectly willing to agree that we have far, far superior
cognitive abilities to most other animals, but to suggest that they don't even
think or make decisions is absurd. (Unless you're claiming that we don't
either, and then you have the makings of an interesting conversation.) I've
kept animals. I've seen you wrong with my own eyes, thousands of times. They
make all kinds of decisions.
When a rat goes to the food bowl and chooses one kind of food over another and
the next time makes a different choice, are you suggesting that that decision
each time is based on some instinctual nutrient balance mechanism? If so, why
do different rats have different preferences? If you have a flock of hens, they
have very obvious "personalities." That's all just instinct? How would we test
for such a thing?
> > Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
> > suppress our "animal instincts"?
>
> Animals {can't} suppress instinct. We are able.
What evidence do you have for this? It's certainly not a stance that modern
biology takes.
> Honestly, I find this equivocation of humans and animals disturbing. Say the
> last tiger alive on earth was attacking me and would indeed kill me if you
> didn't kill it first. Would you?
If it's the last tiger on Earth, then saving it wouldn't do any good. The
species is already doomed. If you were concocting a tiger-specific virus in
order to maliciously wipe them out as a species, I'd happily shoot you in the
head if that was the only way to stop you.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
