Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:27:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7712 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 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?
I did before... that is why I said "This is all very circular."
> 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.
It is not an important point, but you are still very subjective.
>
> 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?
Possibly.
>
> > > > > 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.
But my response was to an extreme hypothetical situation within an extreme
hypothetical situation within – you just don’t like democracy.
>
> > > > > 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. :-)
I could not resist it.
>
> > 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.
OK. Like I said - no property, no rights.
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) it (...) Um, well, I think most people get angry sometimes. That doesn't mean that they can't be objective. And is it your contention that the use of the term 'theft' is a clear indicator of subjectivity? I have yet to hear you or any other (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) 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? (...) When you do, what does that mean? It seems from the way you use the term, (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
