Subject:
|
Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:38:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > "Ka-snip"
> > >
> > > Again, the point of that spectrum is that current left liberals are OK on
> > > personal freedom (factoring out minor PCness) but lousy on economic. current
> > > right conservatives are are OK on economic freedom but lousy on personal • (freedom).
> > >
> > > ++Lar
> >
> > I profoundly disagree. It is liberals who are anti-freedom.
>
> You're not clearly distinguishing betweeen personal and economic freedom, so
> you fall into the one dimensional trap.
I defy you to separate the two - one impacts the other.
>
> > Liberals are the
> > ones trying to tax and regulate anything that moves. You are confusing
> > freedom and morality again.
>
> No I'm not.
>
> Take the quiz.
>
> > Abortion, homosexuality, drugs etc. are not matters of
> > freedom but BASIC morality. All of these things are demonstrably destructive.
>
> 2 points.
>
> a) no they're not
>
> I vehemently dispute that homosexuality is in and of itself destructive.
Ask yourself the question, where would the human race be if we were all
homosexual? We would be extinct. Besides, there is more that is self
destructive in that lifestyle than just HIV. The whole male/female role thing
is completely obscured, not to mention the degree of mental and emotional
problems associated with it. But I guess that would be my fault because I'm an
intolerant bigot, right? I know that's what you think about all religious
people, yet if I stereotype someone you jump all over it. I've mentioned on
many occasions that I have many close personal friends who are gay - they come
to my house to hang out, and I have never criticized them or waved a sign that
reads, "Repent or Burn!". So don't lump me into your convenient little pile to
completely discredit what I believe. You, on the other hand can throw little
temper tantrums and say all manner of outrageous things and everyone is
supposed to tip-toe around you. You hate it when other people are slandered or
misrepresented, but have no problem doing it to religious people - a title
which I don't accept for myself, I don't consider myself religious, I live what
I believe and don't try to force it on anyone - what I do here is to simply
voice my opinions like everyone else. Everyone in this country votes for people
who will promote the principles they believe, yet christians are somehow
illegitimate - I reject that. I'm not trying to limit or control other people's
lives. As far as abortion is concerned, I think it's wrong - sex is for
reproduction, if you don't want offspring keep your pants on. The things I
mentioned before are destructive to society as a whole and it is demonstrable.
> I vehemently dispute that all drugs are destructive. Even all recreational
> drugs, since clearly you're not arguing that penicillin is destructive.
Well, I am allergic to penicillin, so... Seriously though, no I was referring
to illegal drugs, not all drugs. Crack, heroine, pot, etc. Been there, tried
'em all in my youth - and, yes, they are destructive on many levels, even in
moderate usage. That is simple science.
>
> Abortion... I just don't even want to discuss that. No common basis as long as
> you believe that life begins at conception. DON'T respond, there's nothing to
> say.
That's fine, I wasn't trying to troll.
>
> b) so what if they are, as long as you're the only person harmed.
But that's what I addressed in the first message as follows:
I also disagree with the Libertarian premise that I should be allowed to
destroy my own life as long as I don't affect anyone else. This is ludicrous,
no one exists in a vaccuum. It is impossible for me to crumble in ruin and not
affect someone else. Besides the fact that if I don't contribute to the
betterment of society as a whole I have thereby contributed to it's decline.
Everyone is someone elses child, parent, sibling or role model, and that person
has more impact on their surroundings than they could ever imagine.
> Set society up so this is the case and you won't need to legislate morality.
> Your brand of conservatism does legislate morality, and therefore i reject it.
>
> ++Lar
Every law legislates morality by saying this is acceptable and this is not.
This "legislating morality" doesn't even make sense - that's what laws are for
- the point is to legislate according to general consensus of society as a
whole within certain boundaries to prevent the tyranny of an unethical
majority. Laws against murder or stealing are legislating morality "and
therefore I reject" that statement. And I don't have a "brand" of conservatism,
just my own personal points of view, which are no less valid than yours.
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) You're not clearly distinguishing betweeen personal and economic freedom, so you fall into the one dimensional trap. (...) No I'm not. Take the quiz. (...) 2 points. a) no they're not I vehemently dispute that homosexuality is in and of itself (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
58 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
