In any case I don't think that I am proveing much to you , it is very simple to merely say that all evidence presented is imperfect in some way.
I'm sure most evidence is imperfect, but when are you going to present some?
I never expected to change your mind
I don't expect to change your mind. But that doesn't prevent us from having a discussion.
Yet look now at what it is that keeps the Libertarian cause from growing much. Your arguements could easily be misconstrued as advocacy of haveing sex with everything , tho I presented a very long list of sexual deviances you came down in favor of all of them. Nothing need be forbidden.
Right?
Wrong. I did not come down in favor of any of them. At least half of them I have not even addressed yet. And while a discussion about sex between connecting human adults might be misconstrued to endorse "sex with everything" it would take some pretty erroneous thinking to get there. Actually, what keeps the (small 'l') libertarian cause from growing is not enough discussion of the ideas in the public arena. That is slowly changing. Though you do illustrate one problem some people have. They conflate libertarian ideas about law with personal beliefs about morality. If you allow this legally, then you approve of it. That is not the case, though seemingly you think so.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/index.htmlHow does every debate devolve into a discussion of the quality of debate?
They conflate libertarian ideas about law with personal beliefs about morality. If you allow this legally, then you approve of it. That is not the case, though seemingly you think so.
Only seemingly, not actually! might I seem to think so ,I am quite aware of the principals that the government governs best which governs least, That there must be a certain amount of right to be wrong and that legislation of morality does not produce any morality. These cliche's hardly bear repeating . Just as you are no advocate of sexual devancy merely because you do not want any sort of it to be officially discouraged only seemingly so, I also am no advocate of moral fiat as law just because I want to be conservative with the changes of taboos reforced by law.
Only seemingly are you quibbling to maintain that polyandry and bigamy have to be carefully defined as sexless as though sex were no part of marrage contracts though you imply that this same is implyed. only seemingly is this a diversion from the main discussion since evidently the discussion itself is of itself.
Only seemingly do the Libertarians in general hold any opinions in common tot he effect that all things unwholesome should be promoted ,in actuality Libertarians merely advocate that nothing at all be discouraged by force of law unles the necessity of such law can be proven, while also demanding that each word of each bit of evidence be parced to a degree garunteeing that no such discussion shall ever end.
Therefore for the nounce and for the sake of this argument ,(if this collection of verbage deserves such an appellation) we shall resolve that incest , bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography do not involve sex.
Now, is it still possible to answer the question." What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?"?
