Subject:
|
Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 02:23:52 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
415 times
|
| |
|
|
I hope you guys don't mind me butting in...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > 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.
That's true. But, when you look at these limitations of freedom there's sort
of a first glance and then deeper
impacts. If you tell parents what school their child must/may go to, it is
first a social freedom that is being
limited. This may have economic ramifications, but it's not exactly the same
as taxing income which fits the two
roles in opposite order.
But, you're the one claiming that liberals are anti-freedom and presumably that
conservatives are not. And you
base that thesis on the idea that social and economic freedoms are intertwined.
First, Republicans have
supported (and I'm just pulling one out of my head, here) school prayer and
Democrats have not (generally).
That limits my ability (right?) to send my children to public schools devoid of
religious content. So clearly,
conservatives are, in some measure, anti-freedom. And second, how does that
intertwining support your claim?
> > 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.
There is plenty of room in ecology for non-reproductive segments of species.
The goal of any organism is to
propogate in the broad sense, but non-reproducers can aid the genome in other
ways. Most ants do not breed.
And, there are lots of homosexuals who do get together with members of the
opposite sex and have kids
because they want to procreate. So this segment of your claim seems wholly
spurious.
> 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.
What is "the whole male/female role thing" that is being obscured? Is it your
claim that mental and emotional
problems are associated with homosexuality or with this supposed obscurity?
What are the mental and
emotional problems that you mean? And _if_ you could demonstrate that these
psychological issues correlate
with homosexuality (which they may) then how is it that you're assigning
causality? Maybe the same genetic
abnormality (I'm hypothesizing here) causes both. Maybe homosexuality is
caused by these as yet unspecified
psychological problems. Maybe those problems are caused by the sometimes
terrible mistreatment that
homosexuals receive at the hands of common citizens.
> But I guess that would be my fault because I'm an
> intolerant bigot, right?
What's up with this? I was reading a thread a week or so ago in which people
seemed to assume stuff about
Larry like this too. I wonder if the same attributes of his that cause many of
us to respect his intellect and
personality are what turn the others of you off.
> I know that's what you think about all religious people,
I've read a fair amount of his postings here and I think the most you could
claim to 'know' is that he thinks
religious people are deluded. Can you point to his statements that support
your belief? I'm not trying to defend
him here...he's a big boy...I'm just curious about this trend.
> yet if I stereotype someone you jump all over it.
You didn't exactly stereotype homosexuals though. You claimed that their
lifestyle was destructive.
> Everyone in this country votes for people
> who will promote the principles they believe,
This is just a nit-pick, but I don't. I don't have the option of voting for an
even vaguely mainstream candidate
who represents what I believe.
> As far as abortion is concerned, I think it's wrong
You mean, like morally, right? As in evil? I can see that, but I have an
easier time calling it highly irresponsible.
> - sex is for reproduction,
What do you mean by 'for?' According to whom (aside from yourself, of course)?
I have reproduced, but it
was a (happy) mistake. That sex was just for physical gratification - the
production of intense pleasure in a way
that playing with LEGO, watching movies, having good conversation, tasting new
good wines, and reading just
don't provide.
> if you don't want offspring keep your pants on.
Or use contraception!
> The things I mentioned before are destructive to society as a
> whole and it is demonstrable.
You have twice asserted that this claim is demonstrable, but have failed to
demonstrate. Why?
> > 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.
So because a drug is illegal, it is destructive? Does that mean that you think
alcohol is not destructive to
Americans over the age of 21, but destructive to 20 year olds?
> Been there, tried 'em all in my youth - and, yes, they are
> destructive on many levels, even in
> moderate usage. That is simple science.
In the same sense, many legally prescribed (and over the counter)
pharmaceuticals, and even regular foods, are
destructive. That is simple science.
> > 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.
Is that the libertarian premise? I think that we should be able to destroy our
lives whether or not it affects
people. Control of one's own body is just too important to give up for
anything.
> 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.
Ooh, I don't think that's logically or factually true. Can't you be a net
neutral? And when you talk about
contributing to the betterment, who gets to decide what's better?
Every law legislates morality by saying this is acceptable and this is not.
The law that just raised my local sales tax by .15 of a percent to pay for a
new library addition was legislating
what exact morality? Is it saying that buying stuff in this area is morally
wrong since it's making people (at least
a little) go elsewhere to buy stuff, or is it some kind of moral statement
about the library's current size and
offering of services?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| Chris, ( I am jumping in this a day or late, oh well!) (...) sort (...) is (...) same (...) Well, telling which schools to send your kids too is very limiting to parents, and schools do teach a morality of their own, regardless if it is Christian or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) I defy you to separate the two - one impacts the other. (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
