1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

Discussion in 'Never Ending Stories' started by Nylan, Dec 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,127
    Why do you think I've referred to acts than persons in all the objections I've made to behaviours in this discussion. Also Thlayli you do realise that the Pope was referring to those of homosexual inclination who live chastely and fervently strive to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church when he said "who am I to judge". It is perfectly biblical and Christian to condemn actions people take to encourage those people who are acting immorally to repent (1 Timothy 5:20, Luke 17:3)

    @Erez

    Its a logical contradiction since it extends to everything anyone could possibly do. If you hold to any moral standards at all beyond condemning people who disagree with your libertinism as intolerant that in any way rest on the intrinsic nature of the action (rather than so long as people consent), than your own position renders you hypocritical when you condemn them. In fact your own condemnation of people who disagree with your radical libertinism is a contradiction, since if condemnation of a persons agency freely undertaken is immoral, you have no basis for condemning me for saying I disagree with you and find your moral positions repulsive and inhuman. Incidentally if you do indeed define yourself by your sexual inclinations (sex is something one does, not something one is) that's a very shallow self-conception you have.
     
  2. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    There is no such thing as "homosexual inclination". There are homosexuals.
     
  3. Lord of Elves

    Lord of Elves Suede-Denim Secret Police

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    6,922
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    right behind u ;)
    Also, I don't think of myself as particularly far left at all. I am a pretty run-of-the-mill socialist; my political views are really only far left within the continuum of American politics, which is probably the most reactionary domestic microcosm in the Anglosphere outside of Australia or South Africa. I believe that the free market is generally an instrument of repression and that government has a responsibility to regulate the activities of businesses to ensure the best interest of the public. To me, this falls under the category of social contract responsibilities. Similarly, I believe that it in a moral society the government has an obligation to provide a baseline standard of living to its citizens. I also think it is both morally right and efficient that the wealthier and more well-to-do citizens of a state contribute to a welfare system that ensures that baseline quality of life for the less fortunate citizens of the polity.

    My social views are that "traditional" masculinity is poisonous both on an individual level and a societal level, and that women have historically been in a subservient position to men throughout the world, even in the "western world." I think the latter point is basically inarguable. I believe that "women's liberation" is essential to the creation of a more free society and that it is the responsibility of the government to allow people to make their own choices on issues of sexuality and gender and to create an environment in which they can make those choices without fear of being ostracized or attacked. That said, it's also the responsibility of the government not to mandate sexual openness to more chaste people, and to essentially ensure that everyone is free to make whatever sexual choices they want. Obviously sexual relationships which are demonstrably harmful or abusive (pedophilia or relationships steeped in emotional and physical abuse) should be discouraged and punishable by law. That said, there is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation and all that.

    Also I am in favor of nuclear power and believe that in order for a society (particularly a nation-state) to function at all it is necessary for the citizens to perform various civic duties like voting, participating in the process of justice by being on a jury and sometimes serving in wartime. I think in general these are not particularly extreme or surprising positions.
     
  4. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    No it doesn't extend to EVERYTHING anyone could possibly do. Now you are making the fallacy of slippery slope, and one hell of a slippery slope... EVERYTHING? really?

    What's libertinism?

    I doubt intolerance is between consenting adults, so why would I tolerate it? Intolerance is mental rape.

    You really shouldn't delve into morality with me, no morality is defensible. I seek laws for the protection of myself and those I love, the way I see fit is through civilization, and so I seek to protect civilization for myself. Punishment to law breakers is because they are breaking to fabric of civilization upon which I live. Consenting adults doing stuff among themselves in no way influences me, and so being against it is intolerance, no matter what it is.

    Sex is something someone does. Being attracted to another is not something someone "does". It isn't a choice one can just change daily. Homosexuality is attraction to the same sex. You don't choose who you are attracted to or when. Did I really need to explain that?
     
  5. Grandkhan

    Grandkhan Telvanni Master Wizard

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,667
    Location:
    Inside a mushroom
    A serious question for Jehoshua: in light of your position that homosexuality and homosexual sex in particular is immoral, how do you feel about the gay panic defence being abandoned in QLD in 2012 and NSW recently as a valid defence against a murder charge?

    Like, not trying to troll or bait you or anything, its just that I don't really encounter people with your levels of conservatism in my social circle so I'm curious whether you'd consider a violent response to being propositioned (which could presumeably cause a vast amount of discomfort in somebody who finds homosexuality extremely immoral, and the people who use it as a defence argue that it does to the point of violent hysteria) for what they consider a vastly immoral act tolerant.

    Given that your definition of tolerance seems to be "I'll accept it if I don't have to see it or put up with it or condone it," how do you feel about a violent response to being asked to "see it or put up with it or condone it" or for that matter, do it?

    Also as far as I am aware in Australia the left is overwhelmingly opposed to intervention in Syria and, for that matter, Libya, calling it another attempt at western imperialism and the people calling for intervention were largely on the centre-right to the middle. The hard right was against it as far as I'm aware, but the left was also fairly solidly opposed. Your radical student movements must have been weird.
     
  6. Daftpanzer

    Daftpanzer There may be more posts after this.

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Portsmouth, England, UK
    @Jehoshua,

    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
     
  7. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,127
    @Grandkhan: I have no problem with the ditching of the gay-panic defence, murder is murder afterall, and one has plenty of ways to rebuff an unwelcome homosexual advance other than killing the person.

    -

    @Erez: As I noted to North King, I am not making a slippery slope argument (that A will inevitably lead to B) but pointing out the logical trajectory of the position you maintained regarding toleration. A position which does indeed extend to every kind of action or behaviour that a person does, unless you think that toleration should only be given to homosexuals and other sexual minorities akin to yourself (to the exclusion of everything else). Now you have since then said that your entire moral calculus descends entirely to self-interest and that all morality (ergo, objective moral norms) is indefensible (ergo you repudiated toleration as a universal moral principle, and universal morality in general). Instead you admit that your advocacy for tolerance is purely a selfish pragmatic stance for the benefit of yourself and your own inclinations and interests. Now presuming this moral position (and it is a moral position) that self-interests is paramount in terms of social positions is applied universally and is in fact true (it isn't), and that as you say there are no moral norms. I am free to say that, applying your own system to myself, there is no moral objection you could use against me under your moral system to object to me imprisoning or executing you in defence of my interests. Afterall I am perfectly justified in seeking to punish those who break the fabric of the civilisation in which I live (I of course don't advocate for imprisoning or executing you, I'm merely saying that under your moral principles I would be perfectly justified doing so). Likewise since you disavow any objective and universal moral principles, you also have no basis from which to object to my objection to your perverse and repulsive principles on moral grounds (be it by pointing to toleration or anything else), since your appeals to the morality of toleration (and indeed anything else) is, as you say, indefensible. Hence we come to a logical contradiction in your position, since you are using a moral dictate to oppose my difference of opinion, while simultaneously rejecting the very concept of objective morality with which you have been condemning me.

    -

    @LOE: Just as a counterpoint, obviously this is hardly comprehensive.

    Spoiler :
    My position on the market is that while a fairly unrestricted market is a good thing (command economics being an evident failure), free-trade is ultimately repressive and represents corporate resource management at the expense of the well-being of people, with this system leading to ever greater wealth disparities, and directly harming the interests of workers as corporations go for efficiency by hiring the cheapest possible workers (this also being a driver behind mass immigration, which has taken up most newly created jobs in many parts of the west, the Australian case being described in this left wing newspaper here). Hence I support within limits some government regulation of the economy aimed at protecting the interests of the nation (subsidies for farmers for example, and anti-monopoly measures) and ensuring the best interests of the people. Economically I tend to align with the Austrian school although I disagree with their mechanism that seeks to explain the business cycle, and instead hold that its the limits of demand for credit that in our current system acts as the causal factor for the boom-bust cycle of the market. In terms of welfare, I'm fine with minimal subsistence payments to those who cannot work or can show that they are unable to get a job (until such time as they get one ofc), and basic healthcare. But am generally opposed to the kind of exorbitant welfare systems predominant in the west as being a) ultimately unsustainable financially and b) encouraging dependence on the state. I tend to think that charity is best left to individuals and civil society (Church's and humanitarian institutions) and shouldn't be depersonalised and relegated to government bureaucracy.

    Socially I believe that voting is a privilege and not a right, and should primarily be aimed at the wellbeing of society as a whole. The idea that female suffrage is an absolute right then is absurd, and indeed I think female suffrage is ultimately ill-advised for any society that values liberty due to the clearly established correlation between female suffrage and both increased income expenditures on the part of the state (on welfare mostly) and restrictive laws (indeed it is not for no reason that the fascists were firm advocates of female suffrage). That said I would be fine with no electoral system at all and an alternative non-democratic system of governance if said system fulfilled adequately the primary purpose of government, which is to rule and facilitate a) the maintenance public order, the essential liberties of the people and societies laws and customs b) manage relations with foreign entities in the interests of said society and c) defend the society from any foreign threats. If a democratic franchise exists I would also be inclined to restrict it to married male citizens (homosexual unions not being marriage of course) property owners, who contribute more in taxes than they receive over the age of 21, this being primarily to ensure that voters are invested in the wellbeing of society, thus minimising the tendency in electoral politics for detrimental policy to be instituted to appease the selfish interests of various groups. Non-voters in this paradigm would be adequately represented by the votes of their relatives, who can be expected to look out for the interests of their family. Returning to the subject of women (and referring to my economic position) I would be perfectly fine excluding them from universities in the interests of preventing the current devaluation of degrees through the effective doubling of the skilled labour force that has resulted from opening the skilled labour force to women (which is directly harmful to the interests of those in the labour force, due to the subsequent reduction of wages, which effectively forces families to run on two incomes if they are to make ends meet, and by association to family life and children's wellbeing). This however I would consider a prudential matter (although I support it on the basis of social good, I'm not fundamentally against women being educated)

    On sexuality naturally I am a firm supporter of the feminine and masculine virtues, and am opposed to sodomy and the various forms of perversion that proliferate in current times, and to advocacy of the same perversions. Public advocacy of such indecency should not be tolerated, even if prudentially the state allows certain forms of perversion such as sodomy to be legally engaged in in a private capacity (whether or not to make sodomy illegal is a prudential matter on the part of the state in consideration of maintaining public virtue, the key thing is that the state should not support immoral things even if it tolerates them). Rape, pedophilia and the other such abusive sexual actions imposed on other people should be circumscribed by law and punished severely.

    I am in favour of nuclear power and believe that in order for society to function properly the citizenry have an obligation to uphold the moral and social duties membership in that society entails. Likewise I think citizens have an obligation to defend the sovereignty of the society (nation-state) in times of war.
     
  8. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,865
    Above both right and left, then :dunno:
     
  9. JohannaK

    JohannaK Careless Whisperer

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    13,520
    Location:
    Last Christmas
    I believe that morality relates to respect of personal liberty. Moral is something that one does which either has no effects on anybody else or in which the other participants consent consciously. Thus any form of sex or relationships among consenting adults is perfectly moral. Even euthanasia.
     
  10. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,419
    Location:
    北京皇城
    Speaking as a liberal/Nazi/Communist/Socializt/enemy of freedom/anti-Christ, I think this is right on the money. Ideologically consistent pro-gay rights liberals cannot formulate a position against consensual incest or polygamy on the grounds of incest or polygamy being wrong inherently. They may be opposed to either for a tendency to be abusive, but then the problem is with abusive relationships, not incestuous or polygamic ones.

    I will elaborate if asked, though I invite my fellow Soviet Fifth columnists to ponder the following: suppose a brother and a sister, separated at birth, meet up again and, unknowing of their common genetic heritage, engage in a romantic relationship. Has anything immoral occurred?
     
  11. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    You are still thinking with Moralism when referring to what I am saying, and that is where you make your mistake. I am not a moralist. Anyway:

    Saying "pointing out the logical trajectory of the position you maintained regarding toleration" is the same as saying slippery slope.

    Morality isn't just indefensible, it is subjective and so nothing objective can be achieved using morality. My "morality" is subjective as well. All moral position are inherently selfish, you think you know what is right, and want to push it onto others. I don't do that. I do not claim absolute morality, or any at all.

    I am not saying my stand is "true" in any way. I am not saying others must follow my laws. What I am saying is that if anyone is intolerant to anyone, than it opens the door for intolerance, and intolerance will objectively and evidently lead to a collapse of civilization, or at least the end of its progress, or at most selfish - to a civilization I cannot live in (in the literal sense).

    If the fabric of your civilization is somehow dependent on what other people do among themselves with consent than your civilization is childish and backwards, and also big brotherly. And as said that will lead to civilization to collapse, or end its progress (like in 1984).

    Moral grounds are meaningless. The only thing that can allow civilization to oppose something is if it has evidence that it is disturbing civilization. For example, children raised in homosexual families end up being stronger mentally, and more open to other people and less intolerant so all children must be raised by homosexual families, that is the way civilization will survive and progress better. ;) another example is countries where homosexuality is forbidden by law, you can see those are backwater, and have been for a very long time. Those either are getting close to collapse under their own intolerance (by their people who seek tolerance for themselves) or are stagnating for the last thousand years or so...

    In short - morality is subjective and so cannot be claimed as support for anything. Scientific evidence is objective and so can be claimed to support things if need comes. Only way of life for me is to let others do what want and do my best to support the existence of the civilized world (taxes and voting for example). If anyone oversteps that at me or at anyone else or at civilization, I will oppose them, because that will benefit me.

    I'm not defending a moral stand here, I am defending my self.
     
  12. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,127
    You know Erez, you are just reiterating why your entire argument falls flat and is contradicotry. You reject absolutely objective morality in favour of self-interest, therefore you cannot say that my self-interested objection to your position is wrong on grounds of being tolerant or not, since to use tolerance as a yardstick of objection is to make a moral claim that intolerance is wrong, and you have rejected the very concept of moral standards.

    Ergo, I have my self interest and you have yours, and you can't say my position is any more or less correct than yours in ethical terms if you remain faithful to your own position regarding morality. Hence I am completely free to reject your objection as entirely absurd, and simply based on self-interest that doesn't align with my own. Afterall if morality is subjective, than I have no grounds to accept any moral claim you make as valid since you can't point to anything beyond your selfish interests (ideological in the case of your bizarre belief that civilisation would collapse with intolerance [newsflash, civilisation has thrived rejecting your principles of sexual licentiousness for thousands of years, sodomy was only legalised here in the 1990's for example and the great artifacts of western civilisation in particular owe nothing to the principles you espouse] and personal) as a reason to support them. Even more so considering your entire justification for your position is laughable at best (We must reject morality because intolerance will lead to the collapse of civilisation and halt a fictional teleology of linear social progress :lol:).
     
  13. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    I'm not saying it's wrong. I am saying it is evidently detrimental for the progress of the civilization I am a part of, and to me personally.
     
  14. Masada

    Masada Koi-san!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,509
    Location:
    Osaka
    TIL: Thlayli is left-wing.
     
  15. Luckymoose

    Luckymoose The World is Mine

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    18,349
    Location:
    Get Back
    Everyone is left wing compared to Jehoshua. He is so right-wing the definition of right-wing is to his left.
     
  16. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,127
    So you admit you can't object to my position on any objective grounds, which renders your entire original point null, and any argument you could possibly make against my position voided in a puddle of subjectivity. Good.

    @Lucky: I'm probably economically slightly to the left of Thlayli. At any rate, the left-right spectrum doesn't really apply in my case since I don't sit on the right-liberal/libertarian - left liberal/socialist spectrum that it ostensibly measures.

    -

    Also Cicero, you were wrong that the EoE update would have me biting my foot. It was great :D.
     
  17. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    I can, using scientific and historical evidence, I just don't see the point. Your opinion is as subjective as mine so it is basically null as well. When people build a society they come together to decide it's rules. If you and I were to build a society together, you think I'd agree to any homophobia in it? The lowest common agreement between us for laws that say what we can't do, would be my opinions, and so I would win anyway. If it isn't obvious - that's what's happening in the western world anyway. My opinions are winning, because no one wants to suffer intolerance so people agree to tolerate each other.

    I'm winning, your subjective opinions are quickly becoming meaningless, as they should.

    All that remains is that my side wins the economic debate. Which side is that? I have no clue. The side where everyone are happier.
     
  18. Jehoshua

    Jehoshua Catholic

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,127
    In a theoretical Hobbesian state of nature, I would just contest with you, presumably mortally, instead of abiding the disagreement. Afterall your position is hardly the "lowest common denominator", (one can't pretend liberal positions are neutral) mostly because its completely anathema to my own position. Oh and if your opinions are winning how come broad swathes of the middle east are ruled by monstrous jihadists (say what you will about me, at least I don't support the executing of non-Catholics, the enslavement of women and the killing of children), haredim are increasingly predominant in Israel (going from insignificance to major force in only a few decades, I hear liberal jews are leaving Jerusalem for Tel Aviv these days), and a good slew of countries outside of the west are clamping down on advocacy of sodomy? So much for your fiction of linear progress and the victory of your opinions, murderously tyrannical jihadi theocracy is by any measure a step down from (still not ideal) secular autocracy wouldn't you say?

    Either way you can run the old spiel in your mind regarding "inevitable liberal victory" all you want. As I mentioned before, reality tends to have a way of resolving the contradictions inherent to any system violently or otherwise, and the current liberal system is rife with them.
     
  19. JohannaK

    JohannaK Careless Whisperer

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    13,520
    Location:
    Last Christmas
    You know, Jehoshua, I still respect you, but I kindly ask you to stop calling homosexuality sodomy. You are over a century behind the times with that denomination.
     
  20. erez87

    erez87 Lord of Random

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    13,450
    Location:
    Lod, Israel
    So your hopes are the monstrous middle east and anti-liberal not-west take over the world so you could implement homophobic laws? I doubt that. You would rather live where homosexuality is legal than the places where it's not. So again, I am winning, against YOU.

    Don't know about liberalism, but as far as private freedoms mine are the lowest common denominator. You would agree to "no murder", I wouldn't agree to "no gays". I would win.

    I doubt you would choose war to get your more hateful ideals into law. You are after all better than the opinions you claim to follow. That I am certain of. So I'll win against you no matter what.

    Now we need to win together against those who are intolerant to both of us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page