Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:14:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4606 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> It is because I'm getting bored with your dislike of democracy. Bored. After
> I read your last post I remembered this point:
Why then, instead of wasting our time, not just say "I'm bored with this, I'm
not going to participate any more, but I didn't want to just disappear" or
something?
> I'm asking you to be objective that is all.
When you do, what does that mean? It seems from the way you use the term, that
you think one who disagrees with you is lacking it. That's not what it means.
And I'm not sure it's even an aplicable idea since what we're talking about it
the legislation of morality. It is simply an opinion.
> > I don't get it. I think you're stating that prostitutes are "wrong" by
> > engaging in their trade, but I can't get around to the back side to figure • out
> > why you think that. You have implied that adults should be able to engage in
> > legal (non paid) sex. Did you mean only adults married to one another? If a
> > man and woman opt to get married for convenience (e.g. the man will get a
> > steady lay and the woman will have food for her kids (and just to be clear,
> > I'm not in any way suggesting that I think all (or even many, any more)
> > marriage is like this.) ) then you think it should be legal for them to have
> > sex, right? But how is it different than prostitution? I'm just trying to
> > figure what the essense of wrongness is in your perception of prostitution.
>
> This is all very circular.
Why won't you just tell me what you think? What is so difficult about just
stating your stance? Getting an assertion out of you is like pulling teeth.
You allude to thinking that prostitution among other currently (but in my
opinion wrongly) criminal activites, but you won't just say so, and you really
won't say why. Why not? How can explaining your opinion hurt you? If you
have a valid stance, then why not let us look at it and either accept or deny
it? I can think of lots of stances that one might have about why it's OK to
legislate morality, but I don't know which is yours. Do you see some
over-riding social wrong that occurs in places where prostitution is permitted
and thus you are comfortable telling people what their morals should be? Or do
you have a religious reason behind it? Or do you just not value individual
liberty that much, and so legislating in ways like this doesn't seem like much
of a cost to you?
> > > > > I must be a prude.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. You may very well be. For that matter, while I try to keep it
> > > > locked down, I have a prudish streak in my subconscious too.
> > >
> > > "too"? Are you making assumptions about my subconscious?
> >
> > Umm...by the statement above, "I must be a prude," I sort of figured that you
> > were acknowledging that fact about your character.
>
> Nope. I was saying I must be a prude by _your_ standards.
Well, sure, I suppose so. But you think my standards are somehow askew? I
generally attribute prudish attitudes to some form of discomfort
(jealousy? fear? anger?) at the knowledge that other people are engaging in
pleasurable sexual activity that for whatever reason the prude is not
comfortable engaging in himself. So if someone is uncomfortable with
sexuality, they are exhibiting prudishness.
American Heritage says that a prude is "one who is excessively concerned with
being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous."
That's a little different than how I think of it, but it's about the same. I
wonder if my vernacular understanding is more along the lines of what everyone
else means too? Or am I overemphasizing part of it?
> > > > to commonly support majority opinion with statements like 'who am I to
> > > > question...' and '[you|I|we] can vote them [in|out]' etc. What if the • majority
> > > > decided that slavery based on skin tone was once again a good idea? Would • you
> > > > be supportive of such a radical infringement on liberty just because you • live
> > > > in a majority rule system?
> > >
> > > If I thought I could not change the system, I'd leave.
> >
> > What if there was no where better to go?
>
> I'd strive for change.
Well, that's what I do too, but you don't seem happy with it.
> > > > If not (and I really hope that's your stance) then
> > > > why is that OK to reject, and why not lesser injustices?
> >
> > I think this is the really important bit of the discussion. Would you be
> > willing to answer?
I guess that's a "no."
> > This is in essence, you saying "nuh-uh." It isn't very productive.
>
> nuh-uh
Even though I'm frustrated with you, I got a big smile out of that. :-)
> If an indivdual has only property which has no value, in your dreamland,
> would s/he have the right to education, healthcare, food?
Of course not. There is no right to goods. They would have an equal right to
seek those things, but not a right to receive them.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) You admit to being angry / bitter and use terms such as theft... it is difficult to take your argument seriously as it sounds so subjective. (...) I did before... that is why I said "This is all very circular." (...) It is not an important (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) It is because I'm getting bored with your dislike of democracy. Bored. After I read your last post I remembered this point: "Democracy is just an euphemism for mob rule, where two lions and a sheep vote on the dinner, and there should instead (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 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
|
|
|
|
