DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 04:49:42 PM
-
That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong
----------------------------------------
They're All Obama Liberals Now
Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion that no amount of logic, history or everyday experience registers. Thus, they continue to burden the market system to an unsustainable level.
Liberals have always denied they intend to unduly shackle the free market. They say America is exceptionally prosperous -- though it never occurs to them why -- and can afford robust entitlement and redistributive schemes. But in no way would they favor anything extreme that would push the market to the tipping point.
Well, now that they are completely in charge, we've seen what they will do.
Obama liberals believe not in America's promise (and Martin Luther King Jr.'s hope) of equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcomes. Truth be told, Obama probably believes in a wholesale reversal of wealth distribution: not just equalizing it, but making the wealthy poor and the poor wealthy. But I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.
Largely because of their worldview differences, conservatives and liberals will never agree on the moral merits of capitalism versus socialism.
Conservatives believe, generally, that economic and political freedoms are interconnected and that socialism, beyond the obvious, constricts and eventually smothers political liberties. (Hat Tip: Friedrich Hayek.) They believe that our rights are a gift from God and that it is both immoral and counterproductive for a central government to confiscate a major portion of some people's work product and transfer it to others. Nor is any man entitled to moral bragging rights for presiding over government-coerced theft.
But we're not going to reach a consensus on these moral questions, and liberals will continue to demonize, bully and attempt to shame conservatives with their phony moral arguments and ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence contradicting their intractable views.
They could sneak just a superficial peak at an unbiased summary of world history -- should any remain in print -- and confirm that the United States of America has been the freest and most prosperous nation ever -- by far. Even if they reject that Judeo-Christian principles undergird the Constitution, which established a system of limited government that has led to this nation's freedom and prosperity, they should at least acknowledge the freedom and prosperity part.
But don't be so sure, at least not of Obama liberals. They seem to believe that America's success was some kind of historical accident or the result of collective malfeasance on the part of our forefathers and all those who succeeded them up to November 2008. They don't just want to change it, but punish it.
But even liberals less extreme than Obama are applauding his "transformative" change. What they don't understand is that this radical change cannot occur without punishing America and most Americans.
In their insatiable desire to rearrange the seating around the economic dinner table, they're converting the dinner hall to the Titanic and the dining room chairs to deck chairs. With their ever-expanding government and increasing regulatory control, they are sapping the lifeblood out of this country -- and bankrupting it. Even if they can't agree that stealing people's work product is immoral, can't they see that the end result of that confiscatory act is overall financial destruction -- a radical constriction of the economic pie and diminution of our economic and political liberties? No amount of moral preening can wipe clean the moral bankruptcy of economic and political despair born of good intentions.
Sadly, these notions simply do not compute with them and so they reject the evidence that proves it. Thus we have a jubilant David Leonhardt, economic columnist for The New York Times, celebrating that Obama has ushered in a "new progressive period (that) has the makings of a generational shift in how Washington operates" and that rivals "any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition." Leonhardt appears to approve the income redistribution in Obamacare, the financial reform bill and the "stimulus."
Leonhardt says that the "theme" of Obama's agenda has been "to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality." But "by focusing on long-term problems, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have given less than their full attention to the economy's current weakness."
Leonhardt just doesn't get it. It's not that Obama has not focused enough on the economy because he's been preoccupied with his agenda. It's that his agenda is incompatible with fixing the economy because it is destroying the human spirit and its capacity for productivity, not to mention that it, and his method of implementing it, are wholly inconsistent with any powers the framers' contemplated for the federal government.
The Fatal Flaws to liberal "good intentions" (http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2010/05/25/theyre_all_obama_liberals_now)
-
That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong
You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty.
-
And you'd be wrong in trying to make such a broad brush claim, with so much evidence to the contrary
-
And you'd be wrong in trying to make such a broad brush claim, with so much evidence to the contrary
You wrote the sentence. Not me.
-
You applied the broadbrush accusation, not me
-
I addressed your specific comment. Addressing your comment as written is not a broadbrush. If you didn't mean to equate 'right' and 'liberty', 'left' and 'control' then feel free to clarify your meaning.
-
Actually you didn't. You made a simple accusation, broadbrushing the "political right" as not wanting liberty/freedom. Your effort to apply immigration as the 1 lone leg to base such a weak arguement, might have been made in other threads, but not this one. Or what else would you be basing it on??
-
You' lied again. I did not say the political right does not want liberty or freedom.
I'm not doing this again. I'm sick of this whole thing where someone lies about what I said and then I defend myself by explaining umpteen times what I did say.
Just forget it.
Expecting honest discussion is apparently expecting too much.
-
You' lied again. I did not say the political right does not want liberty or freedom.
"You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty."
Not sure why you think our readers have such a short attention span
-
Sirs: "That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong"
Me: "You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty."
Anyone who believes my comment is "a simple accusation, broadbrushing the 'political right' as not wanting liberty/freedom" has significant problems with reading comprehension and possibly a weak grasp of the English language.
-
Still haven't managed to answer the question of how "You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty." is not broadbrushing the political right as not supportive and advocating that of liberty. Your simple say so minus any evidentiary proof isn't going to cut it
Indeed, the polar opposite is the case, when it comes to comparisons of the political left
Care to provide us this laundry list of regulations and restrictions to people, employers, businesses, corporations, etc., advocated by the political right??
-
Still haven't managed to answer the question of how "You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty." is not broadbrushing the political right as not supportive and advocating that of liberty.
You provide actual evidence that it is, and I'll consider providing the unnecessary evidence that it isn't.
-
The actual wording is all the evidence necessary.
"You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty." = It's right to believe that the political 'right' does not equate with liberty/freedom
And he thinks I have a reading comprehension problem ::)
Care to provide an alternate meaning? Contrary to popular Libertarian thought process, Libertarians aren't the ONLY folk that advocate freedom & liberty, Prince. Some ideologies are simply a tad more constructive in doing so
-
Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits ? from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs ? rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.
The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources ? wages, investments, food stamps, etc. ? at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.
Key shifts in income this year:
? Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.
?Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.
The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.
Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.
Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm) he says.
-
That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong
----------------------------------------
They're All Obama Liberals Now
Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion..........
I like the article , Joe the Plumber had the thing pegged on day one.
-
That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong
You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty.
I think that the political right includes a lot of freedom loving people .
Are the borders of libertairianism across a great gulf from the conservatives?
Or a narrow straight?
I think that when a strong Libertairian canadate runs for an office the conservative vote is split , and the leftist vote is intact.
-
That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism. Tell me how I'm wrong
----------------------------------------
They're All Obama Liberals Now
Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion..........
I like the article , Joe the Plumber had the thing pegged on day one.
Ain't that the truth
-
The actual wording is all the evidence necessary.
"You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty." = It's right to believe that the political 'right' does not equate with liberty/freedom
Even assuming for the sake of argument that is what I meant, "It's right to believe that the political 'right' does not equate with liberty/freedom" still is not "a simple accusation, broadbrushing the 'political right' as not wanting liberty/freedom".
Care to provide an alternate meaning?
An alternate meaning to "a simple accusation, broadbrushing the 'political right' as not wanting liberty/freedom"? Sure. You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty'. As in, the two are not equivalent, interchangeable, fungible, synonymous, et cetera.
Contrary to popular Libertarian thought process, Libertarians aren't the ONLY folk that advocate freedom & liberty, Prince. Some ideologies are simply a tad more constructive in doing so
I don't know what the LP thinking is, but you clearly have no idea what popular (small 'l') libertarian thought process is. And I won't mention what I think of the second sentence.
-
I think that the political right includes a lot of freedom loving people .
Yes, it certainly does.
Are the borders of libertairianism across a great gulf from the conservatives?
Or a narrow straight?
I don't know.
-
Sure. You're wrong in trying equate political 'right' with 'liberty'. As in, the two are not equivalent, interchangeable, fungible, synonymous, et cetera
Wow ....even I wouldn't go so far as to say that the entire right is perfectly freedom loving or that there is no wrong on the Right or that "right " and "freedom" were a synonym.
Um... who did?
-
I think that the political right includes a lot of freedom loving people .
Yes, it certainly does.
Are the borders of libertairianism across a great gulf from the conservatives?
Or a narrow straight?
I don't know.
You don't know and I am not sure .
This is worthy of discussion.
-
Wow ....even I wouldn't go so far as to say that the entire right is perfectly freedom loving or that there is no wrong on the Right or that "right " and "freedom" were a synonym.
Um... who did?
No one.
-
This is worthy of discussion.
I recommend you start here: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz)
-
This is worthy of discussion.
I recommend you start here: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz)
Ah yes, the extreme fun of canned answers.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
Color me surprised.
-
So you don't actually want to discuss it. I keep forgetting the goal here is to make fun of libertarians. And though that might be fun for you, it's beginning to lose its appeal to me.
-
And who's made it that goal?
--------------------------------
Now, if I were to apply the Prince-approved application of lying, I could claim you're lying about the claim that the goal around here is to make fun of libertarians.
It's one thing to be supposedly wrong about something. It's completely another to claim one means/believes something, while they claim something else
-
It's one thing to be supposedly wrong about something. It's completely another to claim one means/believes something, while they claim something else
Indeed. Tell that to Sirs... oh, wait....
-
And lookie there....no answer to the question. Imagine that
-
Sirs, I've explained why I have zero incentive to answer your questions. I'm not here to play your game where you say any made up thing you like about what I say, and I'm supposed to accept your false version of my words as truth. When you are prepared for a honest discussion, let me know. I'll be happy to answer your questions.
-
And prince, as I've explained before, your lies about claims of my lies, are as trasnparent as bathwater. And as referenced earlier, your continued kneejerk application of the term, minus any proof of such, minus any effort to actually address the debate-like questions posed, shows far more how flimsy your position is, and how far more deflective you present yourself as. Case in point, this thread, consistently ignoring the original point of the thread, and instead perpetuating this cycle of name calling and claims of my trying to say something you never said. My hyperbole and sarcasm does not equate to lying, when it simply highlights positions of yours that are weak at best.
It's not lying, if its an assessment I've made, based on your own words. It's only lying if I claim your saying 1 thing, but know you're trying to say something else
Catch the difference yet? Going to address the question posed in the prior post, or the original point of the thread??
-
So you don't actually want to discuss it. I keep forgetting the goal here is to make fun of libertarians. And though that might be fun for you, it's beginning to lose its appeal to me.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
Dang.
-
minus any proof of such,
Actually, proof you simply choose to explain away as merely an "analysis" or some such.
minus any effort to actually address the debate-like questions posed,
Debate-like... yeah, that's probably accurate. Not actual debate questions, just debate-like questions.
shows far more how flimsy your position is, and how far more deflective you present yourself as.
'Cause not playing the game where you make up things I didn't say and then I defend myself by correcting you umpteen times only to have you insist only your "analysis" is true despite anything I say means my position is flimsy? Um, no. And since you're the one who has to lie about what I say to counter me, you don't really have grounds to accuse someone else of having a flimsy position.
and how far more deflective you present yourself as.
Wait... what?
Case in point, this thread, consistently ignoring the original point of the thread,
Says the man who wanted to bring the immigration debate into the "Oh good gravy....Sedition??" thread.
My hyperbole and sarcasm does not equate to lying, when it simply highlights positions of yours that are weak at best.
It's not lying, if its an assessment I've made, based on your own words.
The problem here being that you're not highlighting positions of mine or giving assessments of my words. You are claiming I said and/or meant things I did not say. If I say 'I didn't say your criticism of me is a lie', and you say I said your criticism of me was a lie, that isn't highlighting my position or assessing my words. It's claiming I said/meant something entirely other than what I actually said. And basically, that is exactly the sort of thing you have done time after time after time. And when I have tried to correct you, explain my position, all I get for my trouble is you insisting I can only mean what you say I mean and/or that I said exactly whatever made up nonsense you claim I said and therefore I'm being unreasonable to assert otherwise. When you do that, you're not debating or assessing or highlighting. You're just lying.
It's only lying if I claim your saying 1 thing, but know you're trying to say something else
That's just it, Sirs. You do know I have said something else. And even when I bother to explain what I said or meant, you still insist the false thing you try to claim I said or meant is true and that my explanation is not. Thus, you are lying. If you are going to claim you don't know that I've said or meant something else even though I've said exactly that about a hundred thousand times (give or take a few), you're only lying more.
Going to address the question posed in the prior post, or the original point of the thread??
Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.
-
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%
Okay, so how did you answer those questions and why?
To no one's surprise I'm sure, I score 100% on both the personal and economic portions of the quiz.
-
Personal Issues Disagree Maybe Agree
Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet. *
Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. *
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. *
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. *
There should be no National ID card. *
So You can't see any role for the government , in preventing any sort of sex?
When you are visiting should I lock away the livestock?
-
So You can't see any role for the government , in preventing any sort of sex?
That is not what the quiz says. It says, "There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults." What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?
When you are visiting should I lock away the livestock?
Does your livestock consist of consenting human adults? If it does, you're a far more interesting man than I gave you credit for being.
-
So You can't see any role for the government , in preventing any sort of sex?
That is not what the quiz says. It says, "There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults." What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?
Incest , bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , in that order of importance.
http://www.treelight.com/essays/sexuality.html (http://www.treelight.com/essays/sexuality.html)
http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/good-sex/the-difference-between-healthy-and-unhealthy-sex/menu-id-66/ (http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/good-sex/the-difference-between-healthy-and-unhealthy-sex/menu-id-66/)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-11/16/content_6257954.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-11/16/content_6257954.htm)
Somewhat related , the Japaneese government require that only specially licenced chefs prepare Fugu , should just anyone have the right to prepare Fugu? What is a little Fugu between consenting adults?
-
Incest , bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , in that order of importance.
Bigamy is not sex. Bestiality is not sex between consenting human adults. Polyandry is having more than one husband, not sex (though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way), and seems redundant when you mention bigamy first. So setting those aside for a moment, the links you provide don't really seem to make a case for government banning incest, homosexuality, prostitution or pornography. So why does the government need to ban these things?
Rather than try to discuss all of them at once, let's start with just one.
General fornication seems not to be on your list. So two consenting heterosexual, unrelated adults have sex outside of a marriage, that is, apparently, okay with you. But if one pays the other for the sex, that is, apparently, not okay with you. Why is free sex okay but purchased sex not okay?
And does the fact that a libertarian finds consensual prostitution acceptable mean there is a 'great gulf' or a 'narrow strait' between his position and yours?
Somewhat related , the Japaneese government require that only specially licenced chefs prepare Fugu , should just anyone have the right to prepare Fugu? What is a little Fugu between consenting adults?
Fugu prepared incorrectly can, when eaten, cause paralysis and death. Consensual sex between a prostitute and another person, not so much. Anyway, are you advocating that people who want to have sex should be legally required to be trained and licensed in proper sexual technique? I would guess that you are not, but I'm not sure what other conclusion I am to draw from your mention of licensed Fugu chefs and your question "What is a little Fugu between consenting adults?" in a discussion about whether there should or should not be laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
-
Incest , bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , in that order of importance.
-------------------------------------
Bigamy is not sex. Bestiality is not sex between consenting human adults. Polyandry is having more than one husband, not sex (though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way), and seems redundant when you mention bigamy first. So setting those aside for a moment, the links you provide don't really seem to make a case for government banning incest, homosexuality, prostitution or pornography. So why does the government need to ban these things?
Rather than try to discuss all of them at once, let's start with just one.
Thank you , it is so much less work for me when you include your own refutation in your argument.
General fornication seems not to be on your list. So two consenting heterosexual, unrelated adults have sex outside of a marriage, that is, apparently, okay with you.
No, but it is harder to prevent than Jaywalking.Not worth the effort for the government to prevent it , the Church ought to talk it down and persuede people to do right.But if one pays the other for the sex, that is, apparently, not okay with you. Why is free sex okay but purchased sex not okay?
Strictly because of the effect ,the government has an intrest in preventing the ruin of its citizens the exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not saleable comodity, the exchange of money makes the business grow powerfull , this is tolerable if the business is recruiting seamstresses or basketball players. Even when the Government recruits civil servants it is tolerable , but do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution?
And does the fact that a libertarian finds consensual prostitution acceptable mean there is a 'great gulf' or a 'narrow strait' between his position and yours?[/color]
There is a pond there , is the experiment being performed in Austrailia , Nevada and Denmark to scientificly determine which idea works better?
Somewhat related , the Japaneese government require that only specially licenced chefs prepare Fugu , should just anyone have the right to prepare Fugu? What is a little Fugu between consenting adults?
Fugu prepared incorrectly can, when eaten, cause paralysis and death. Consensual sex between a prostitute and another person, not so much.
Oh? Are you really unaware of how severely dangerous sex can be?Anyway, are you advocating that people who want to have sex should be legally required to be trained and licensed in proper sexual technique?
Meh , might help ,I don't notice a lot of imporvement since it became a required High school subject , but perhaps we are not teaching it quite right yet. I would guess that you are not,
That saves a lot of time doesn't it? Perhaps you should let me guess your thinking rather than writeing so much.but I'm not sure what other conclusion I am to draw from your mention of licensed Fugu chefs and your question "What is a little Fugu between consenting adults?" in a discussion about whether there should or should not be laws regarding sex for consenting adults.[/color]
Does the government have an intrest in Fugu or does it not? The Japaneese love that stuff ,even though they know it is dangerous they pay much for it. The government trains and sells license to chefs to mitigate the danger . A lot of states license marrage and require testing for the common STDS when they issue the lisense. Does the state really have any call in mitigateing the harmfull potential of unlicensed sexual relationship ? Incest , Bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , etc...?
-
I heard blood test for marraige licence are gone , is that true?
-
Thank you , it is so much less work for me when you include your own refutation in your argument.
What are you talking about? What, exactly, was refuted by what, exactly? I can only guess that you intended to highlight the parenthetical phrase "though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way". However, admitting that a marriage with more than one spouse involves sex somewhere along the way hardly refutes that polyandry is defined as having more than one husband and not as a sex act. So if that is what you meant, you're wrong.
Strictly because of the effect ,the government has an intrest in preventing the ruin of its citizens the exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not saleable comodity, the exchange of money makes the business grow powerfull , this is tolerable if the business is recruiting seamstresses or basketball players. Even when the Government recruits civil servants it is tolerable , but do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution?
An interest in preventing the ruin of its citizens. Ruin according to whom and by what standard? The exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not salable commodity? I do not agree. Selling the service of sex is no worse than selling the service of house cleaning, plumbing or preparing one's taxes. Do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution? I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe a person owns him or herself. Do you?
And does the fact that a libertarian finds consensual prostitution acceptable mean there is a 'great gulf' or a 'narrow strait' between his position and yours?
There is a pond there , is the experiment being performed in Austrailia , Nevada and Denmark to scientificly determine which idea works better?
I am unconvinced the "experiment" is an experiment, much less that anyone would be performing it to scientifically determine anything.
Fugu prepared incorrectly can, when eaten, cause paralysis and death. Consensual sex between a prostitute and another person, not so much.
Oh? Are you really unaware of how severely dangerous sex can be?
I am unaware of any reports of improperly executed sex directly and solely being the cause of someone becoming paralyzed or dying within hours of the act, as is known to happen with eating improperly prepared fugu due to the ingestion of poison. Feel free to share.
I would guess that you are not,
That saves a lot of time doesn't it? Perhaps you should let me guess your thinking rather than writeing so much.
Feel free to guess all you like. Why would guessing be a problem? Just don't lie about what I say when I correct your guesses.
Does the government have an intrest in Fugu or does it not? The Japaneese love that stuff ,even though they know it is dangerous they pay much for it. The government trains and sells license to chefs to mitigate the danger . A lot of states license marrage and require testing for the common STDS when they issue the lisense. Does the state really have any call in mitigateing the harmfull potential of unlicensed sexual relationship ? Incest , Bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , etc...?
Mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationship? And you compare this to licensing fugu chefs. If one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then any human activity with any potential for any harm whatever is in need of government regulations and licenses. And no, I do not agree that the government has any call to be inserting itself into every area of human activity that potentially might cause harm to someone. So no, I do not agree with your argument.
Does the government have an interest in fugu? I guess you mean does the government have an interest in licensing chefs who prepare fugu because fugu can be poisonous. The argument can be made, though frankly I don't believe government licensing is necessary. Private certification would probably work about as well. It's bad for business to kill off customers.
Does the state have any call in mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationships? No. If it does then your argument that preventing heterosexual fornication is not worth the effort is a double standard. But, no, the state should not be involved in licensing sexual relationships. Nor should the state be involved in defining what consensual sex acts consenting human adults may or may not perform with each other.
-
Thank you , it is so much less work for me when you include your own refutation in your argument.
What are you talking about? What, exactly, was refuted by what, exactly? I can only guess that you intended to highlight the parenthetical phrase "though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way". However, admitting that a marriage with more than one spouse involves sex somewhere along the way hardly refutes that polyandry is defined as having more than one husband and not as a sex act. So if that is what you meant, you're wrong.
Hahahaha, you have done it again.Involveing sex is the key element , and you are within a hair of understanding your own statement. A handfasting or sexless relationship of any sort would not be within the scope of this discussion would it? Nor would there be much reason to discourage it.
Strictly because of the effect ,the government has an intrest in preventing the ruin of its citizens the exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not saleable comodity, the exchange of money makes the business grow powerfull , this is tolerable if the business is recruiting seamstresses or basketball players. Even when the Government recruits civil servants it is tolerable , but do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution?
An interest in preventing the ruin of its citizens. Ruin according to whom and by what standard? The exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not salable commodity? I do not agree. Selling the service of sex is no worse than selling the service of house cleaning, plumbing or preparing one's taxes. Do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution? I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe a person owns him or herself. Do you?.
That ened with a good question.As a Christian I belong to God , as an American Citizen I belong mostly but not entirely to myself.
Do you actually not draw any distinction between plumbing and prostitution? Let me help you with that, lots of skilled plumbers in a community can reduce the incidence of disease.
And does the fact that a libertarian finds consensual prostitution acceptable mean there is a 'great gulf' or a 'narrow strait' between his position and yours?
There is a pond there , is the experiment being performed in Austrailia , Nevada and Denmark to scientificly determine which idea works better?
I am unconvinced the "experiment" is an experiment, much less that anyone would be performing it to scientifically determine anything..
Observation counts as science.
Fugu prepared incorrectly can, when eaten, cause paralysis and death. Consensual sex between a prostitute and another person, not so much.
Oh? Are you really unaware of how severely dangerous sex can be?
I am unaware of any reports of improperly executed sex directly and solely being the cause of someone becoming paralyzed or dying within hours of the act, as is known to happen with eating improperly prepared fugu due to the ingestion of poison. Feel free to share.
.
Yes! Properly prepared Fugu is safe, improperly done Sex is more dangereous than anything elese in the human experience. I knew you could make the connection. Sex causes people to kill one another , makes persons vectors for disease and corrupts persons who are liable to addiction no less than a natrcotic that you cannot leave behind anywhere.I would guess that you are not,
That saves a lot of time doesn't it? Perhaps you should let me guess your thinking rather than writeing so much.
Feel free to guess all you like. Why would guessing be a problem? Just don't lie about what I say when I correct your guesses.
I don't beleive I have been doing that , I would be irritated .
Does the government have an intrest in Fugu or does it not? The Japaneese love that stuff ,even though they know it is dangerous they pay much for it. The government trains and sells license to chefs to mitigate the danger . A lot of states license marrage and require testing for the common STDS when they issue the lisense. Does the state really have any call in mitigateing the harmfull potential of unlicensed sexual relationship ? Incest , Bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , etc...?
Mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationship? And you compare this to licensing fugu chefs. If one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then any human activity with any potential for any harm whatever is in need of government regulations and licenses. And no, I do not agree that the government has any call to be inserting itself into every area of human activity that potentially might cause harm to someone. So no, I do not agree with your argument.
Does the government have an interest in fugu? I guess you mean does the government have an interest in licensing chefs who prepare fugu because fugu can be poisonous. The argument can be made, though frankly I don't believe government licensing is necessary. Private certification would probably work about as well. It's bad for business to kill off customers.
Does the state have any call in mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationships? No. If it does then your argument that preventing heterosexual fornication is not worth the effort is a double standard. But, no, the state should not be involved in licensing sexual relationships. Nor should the state be involved in defining what consensual sex acts consenting human adults may or may not perform with each other.
The state has intrest in preventing disruption that is liable to destroy the state. This is the principal of evolution. States that do not prevent their own dissolution are soon not states. Diseases and dangers that are tolerable the state should allow for the sake of its individual members happyness after all there is no state without individuals , but there is also no state without order so dangers that rise to the level of extential threat, the state properly limits.
I think we would agree that the individual right is generally worthy and the state should not exercise rights to the detriment of an individuals rights without need , but I seem to see you thinking that the states right to exist is trumped by an individual right to self destructive behavior , If I have read you wrong please let me know.
I think that the State properly exists as a tool of the people and rightly rules by the consent of the governed, as long as the state has the consent of the governed and is beneficial to the people* it has a right itself to exist as a social contract and has a certain amount of right to enforce its right to exist onto the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The people need to not only benefit , but also understand and perceive this benefit, elese consent of the governed is lost.
-
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%
Okay, so how did you answer those questions and why?
To no one's surprise I'm sure, I score 100% on both the personal and economic portions of the quiz.
That must put you in the sparcely populated apex of that matrix.
There is nothing wrong with holding rare opinions , I do some myself .
It can be perplexing tho to live in any kind of democracy and think that most of the people arn't getting it right.
-
Incest , bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , in that order of importance.
Bigamy is not sex. Bestiality is not sex between consenting human adults. Polyandry is having more than one husband, not sex and seems redundant when you mention bigamy first.
I lead my list with Incest , you left it out of your reply.
Do you agree with a state intrest in prevention of incest?
-
minus any proof of such,
Actually, proof you simply choose to explain away as merely an "analysis" or some such.
No, proof of actual purposeful lies....case in point.......
It's only lying if I claim your saying 1 thing, but know you're trying to say something else
That's just it, Sirs. You do know I have said something else.
....Right there. NO, I DON'T KNOW you've said something else, since I concluded you said what you said. ::)
Going to address the question posed in the prior post, or the original point of the thread??
Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.
I didn't think you would. Thanks for helping to make my point *sigh*
-
Hahahaha, you have done it again.
Yes, I pointed out that polyandry is not defined as a sex act, again.
A handfasting or sexless relationship of any sort would not be within the scope of this discussion would it?
My question was, "What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?" Polyandry is not sex. If your objection is sex with multiple partners, then you should say so. Do you find having multiple spouses acceptable so long as they don't have sex?
As a Christian I belong to God , as an American Citizen I belong mostly but not entirely to myself.
As an American citizen, who else owns you? And upon what is this partial ownership based?
Do you actually not draw any distinction between plumbing and prostitution? Let me help you with that, lots of skilled plumbers in a community can reduce the incidence of disease.
So can skilled, healthy prostitutes. Fixing the plumbing in someone else's house for pay is a service. Sex with someone doe pay is also a service. I have yet to see you provide an argument as to why one is permissible and the other is not.
Yes! Properly prepared Fugu is safe, improperly done Sex is more dangereous than anything elese in the human experience. I knew you could make the connection.
Um, no. You have not established that connection, nor does it make sense even with your comparison of sex to fugu.
Sex causes people to kill one another
Oh? The proof for that must be interesting. I'd like to see it. A comparison of murder rates and the amount of sex in society would also be interesting.
Sex [...] makes persons vectors for disease and corrupts persons who are liable to addiction no less than a natrcotic that you cannot leave behind anywhere.
So are you also in favor of forcing everyone to live in hermetically sealed bubbles? Are you in favor of banning all activities that are pleasurable to prevent anyone from becoming addicted to them?
The state has intrest in preventing disruption that is liable to destroy the state. This is the principal of evolution. States that do not prevent their own dissolution are soon not states. Diseases and dangers that are tolerable the state should allow for the sake of its individual members happyness after all there is no state without individuals , but there is also no state without order so dangers that rise to the level of extential threat, the state properly limits.
You have yet to provide any evidence that incest, bigamy, bestiality, homosexuality, polyandry, prostitution and pornography are threats to the state.
I think we would agree that the individual right is generally worthy and the state should not exercise rights to the detriment of an individuals rights without need , but I seem to see you thinking that the states right to exist is trumped by an individual right to self destructive behavior , If I have read you wrong please let me know.
I am thinking that in general self-destructive behavior is not a threat to the state and is therefore not something the state has any business preventing. You seem to be assuming the main goal of the state is supposed to be the preservation of the government at all costs. I do not agree. The main goal of the state should be the protection of the rights of individuals.
I think that the State properly exists as a tool of the people and rightly rules by the consent of the governed, as long as the state has the consent of the governed and is beneficial to the people* it has a right itself to exist as a social contract and has a certain amount of right to enforce its right to exist onto the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The people need to not only benefit , but also understand and perceive this benefit, elese consent of the governed is lost.
Enforcing its right to exist is not even remotely the same as preventing people from consensual acts that are not a threat to the existence of the government. If you can prove that incest, bigamy, bestiality, homosexuality, polyandry, prostitution and pornography are indeed threats to the state, you might have an argument. Until then, you definitely do not.
-
edit
-
edit
-
I lead my list with Incest , you left it out of your reply.
Actually, I lumped it together with homosexuality, prostitution and pornography.
Do you agree with a state intrest in prevention of incest?
That depends on what sort of incest we are talking about. A father forcibly having sex with his daughter, yes, the state has an interest in banning that as a matter of protecting the rights of the daughter. On the other hand, an of age brother and sister consensually engaging in sex, while I find it morally reprehensible, is not the business of the state, no.
-
proof of actual purposeful lies
Which has been provided, here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9710.msg101745#msg101745), here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9488.msg101650#msg101650) and multiple other times in other threads.
NO, I DON'T KNOW you've said something else, since I concluded you said what you said.
I repeat: If you are going to claim you don't know that I've said or meant something else even though I've said exactly that about a hundred thousand times (give or take a few), you're only lying more.
Going to address the question posed in the prior post, or the original point of the thread??
Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.
I didn't think you would. Thanks for helping to make my point *sigh*
Actually, I think you proved mine. You're not interested in honest debate.
-
And yet again your supposed "proof" is nothing more than my conclusions of both your meaning & intent, of YOUR words. My hyperbole & sarcasm aside, there's nothing nefarious or deceitful here, which is what's required for your continued kneejerk cries of lying, and now let's add "not interested in honest debate"
Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.
I didn't think you would. Thanks for helping to make my point *sigh*
Actually, I think you proved mine. You're not interested in honest debate.
Says the man that has invested responses contributing to 4 pages, yet is there even 1 or 2 addressing the original point of the thread?? Outside of the LIE that sirs was equating right with liberty, as interchangible, nary a peep about the honest debate that was attempted, nor any responses to the substantive questions posed. Might want to check that mirror, Prince
-
And yet again your supposed "proof" is nothing more than my conclusions of both your meaning & intent, of YOUR words.
See? You ask for proof, I give you proof, and you just deny it. The thing is, Sirs, you don't ask what I mean, or state a conclusion and then allow me to correct you if your conclusion about what I mean is incorrect. You just make untrue statements about what I say or mean, and then no matter what else I say, you insist your untrue statements are true. You are not being honest. You have not made honest mistakes. You have lied. And then you lie about the lying, claiming things such as that you don't know I have said or meant something else, despite the fact that I have explained I meant and/or said something else many, many times. Or you lie and say your lies are just conclusions of my meaning and intent as if somehow you know what I mean and intend while I do not. No matter how you spin this, you lied.
My hyperbole & sarcasm aside, there's nothing nefarious or deceitful here
Except for the part where you claim I said or meant things I did not say or mean regardless of any correction I provide. Nefarious, no, but then I never said it was. Deceitful, yes, most definitely.
Says the man that has invested responses contributing to 4 pages, yet is there even 1 or 2 addressing the original point of the thread??
Says the man who lied almost immediately about my initial reply to his initial post.
Outside of the LIE that sirs was equating right with liberty, as interchangible,
You made the statement, "That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism." You said "polar battle" and listed a set of what apparently consider points in polar opposition to one another, "right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism." Your language does not indicate you think this is a battle of 6 or 8 different sides. Your language indicates you are aligning specifically opportunity, right, liberty and capitalism together against an alignment of outcome, left, control and socialism. No one has at any time prevented you from explaining your list further or explaining why my comment about the list is wrong. Instead, all you did was lie about what I said. You have no one to blame for that but yourself.
nary a peep about the honest debate that was attempted,
That assumes I believed you were attempting honest debate. Your record on this does not indicate to me that you were attempting such.
nor any responses to the substantive questions posed.
Which would be pointless if you are not going to engage in honest debate. In fact, given an opportunity for honest debate, you instead lied about what I said.
-
Gonna give you a couple of more recommendations, Prince.
- Rather than inaccurately, and flagrantly at that I might add, about my supposed non-intentions at "serious debate", take a moment to simply answer the question(s) being posed, vs the hour+ to date, of claiming how poorly you're being treated by sirs supposed lying about what you say you said. It is a debate forum, not a venting forum. I demonstrated the fallacy of the lying claim and the deceit required for its validation. No need to perseverate on it
- If you feel (again often wrongly when the subject of immigration comes up) that someone is lying about what you say you said, instead of spending countless bandwith in complaining about it, and waiting for that someone to either ask the right question, or demonstrate some equivalent point you were supposedly trying to make, take a moment and say something like "No, that's not what I meant to say, if that's what you thought. For clarity purposes, this is what I clearly meant to say......."
Hope that helped
-
If you feel (again often wrongly when the subject of immigration comes up) that someone is lying about what you say you said, instead of spending countless bandwith in complaining about it, and waiting for that someone to either ask the right question, or demonstrate some equivalent point you were supposedly trying to make, take a moment and say something like "No, that's not what I meant to say, if that's what you thought. For clarity purposes, this is what I clearly meant to say......."
Hope that helped
Sirs, having explained for you and expounded for you and clarified for you what I did say and meant to say many times, only to have you continue to lie about my position, I find your suggestion laughable. Clarifying works when the other person reads it and accepts it. When the other person insists on continuing with the untrue assertions regardless of correction, as you have, clarification is in vain. And if after plenty of clarification the other person still insists he does not know one said or meant something else, then other person is simply lying.
And any time you feel like going back and saying, "No, equating political 'right' with 'liberty' is not what I meant to say; and for clarity purposes what I meant to say was..." by all means do so. Watching you follow your own advice might be instructive.
-
And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree.
It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours
-
I lead my list with Incest , you left it out of your reply.
Actually, I lumped it together with homosexuality, prostitution and pornography.
Do you agree with a state intrest in prevention of incest?
That depends on what sort of incest we are talking about. A father forcibly having sex with his daughter, yes, the state has an interest in banning that as a matter of protecting the rights of the daughter. On the other hand, an of age brother and sister consensually engaging in sex, while I find it morally reprehensible, is not the business of the state, no.
Eeeww... this is begining to get unpleasant.
The state may prohibit open pit toilets in densely populated areas , and for much the same reason it may prop up the anchient taboo on incest.
Human beings came to the realisation that incest bred troubble long before it understood germ theroy.
Gregor Mendel would be a good one to explain to you the peril of incestous reproduction , Odepus rex would be a good one to explain to you the social cost.
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. This is an explanation for us all here for why we beat the dead horses so fruitlessly , I never expected to change your mind that is a rare event in this venue , even in this medium.
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?
-
Hahahaha, you have done it again.
Yes, I pointed out that polyandry is not defined as a sex act, again.
"(though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way)" I also am sure that sex is involved somewhere , as in it is in the purpose of such a compact, shall we say, more often than not?
A handfasting or sexless relationship of any sort would not be within the scope of this discussion would it?
My question was, "What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?" Polyandry is not sex. If your objection is sex with multiple partners, then you should say so. Do you find having multiple spouses acceptable so long as they don't have sex?
Spouces that are consensually not haveing sex are called business partners. I wonder why you are quibbleing so much , yes it is the sex that makes the relationship either important or dangerous , especially in context as we are discussing it. If six brothers four sisters and a horse join their efforts and pool their recorces, it is not bigamy , not polyandry , not beastiality not homosexuality nor even incest untill penetration occurs.
Quit stalling and advocate free sex of any imagineable sort , are you not a Libertarian?
As a Christian I belong to God , as an American Citizen I belong mostly but not entirely to myself.
As an American citizen, who else owns you? And upon what is this partial ownership based?
My consent to be governed , in theroy and idealy we have a government of the people by the people and of the people , this more than just implys a lot of mutual obligation.
Do you actually not draw any distinction between plumbing and prostitution? Let me help you with that, lots of skilled plumbers in a community can reduce the incidence of disease.
So can skilled, healthy prostitutes.
You are highly prone to wishfull thinking , what measures to prevent the spread of STDs are more than 80% effective?
(http://www.daniellecorsetto.com/images/gws/GWS947.jpg)
-
And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree.
It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours
So you're not going to follow your own advice. That is the evidence of the extent of your desire for honest debate.
-
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.
-
And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree.
It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours
So you're not going to follow your own advice. That is the evidence of the extent of your desire for honest debate.
I tried. Rather than jumping up and down calling you a liar in every other sentence (Oh god, now he's going to say that was a lie, because he never called me a liar in every other sentence. The irony of the hyperbole will yet again be ignored, I'm sure) I tried serious debate forum questions. You refused, pleading something along the lines that you just couldn't allow yourself, with such a sinister shister, like myself, asking them. End of story. If you must have the last word, the floor is yours
-
Spouces that are consensually not haveing sex are called business partners. I wonder why you are quibbleing so much , yes it is the sex that makes the relationship either important or dangerous , especially in context as we are discussing it.
That doesn't answer my question.
I wonder why you are quibbleing so much
Because words matter.
If six brothers four sisters and a horse join their efforts and pool their recorces, it is not bigamy , not polyandry , not beastiality not homosexuality nor even incest untill penetration occurs.
Quit stalling and advocate free sex of any imagineable sort , are you not a Libertarian?
Why do I need to advocate something in which I do not believe? Libertarian does not mean libertine. Why don't you quit stalling and advocate the government control of all sexual relations and instances of sexual intercourse? Don't you want to protect people from harmful sex?
My consent to be governed , in theroy and idealy we have a government of the people by the people and of the people , this more than just implys a lot of mutual obligation.
That does not explain why you are partially owned by other people. It explains why you might feel obligated to do something for other people, but it does not establish a basis of ownership, partial or otherwise. Though I find interesting that you seem to be concerned over people being commodities, and yet while you seem to think a consent to be government transfers part ownership of you to someone else, you seem to have no objections to that at all.
You are highly prone to wishfull thinking , what measures to prevent the spread of STDs are more than 80% effective?
Other than abstinence, I don't know, but I am not going to support government banning all sex to prevent the spread of STDs. On the other hand, legal prostitution where in prostitutes are required to be free of diseases can help prevent the spread of STDs.
-
I tried. Rather than jumping up and down calling you a liar in every other sentence (Oh god, now he's going to say that was a lie, because he never called me a liar in every other sentence. The irony of the hyperbole will yet again be ignored, I'm sure) I tried serious debate forum questions.
Questions that did absolutely nothing to clarify the intended meaning of your list. So, no, you didn't try to follow your own advice and clarify your meaning. And hyperbole was never ignored. Lies, however, are lies. And when I say one thing and you claim I said something else entirely, that is not hyperbole but rather a lie.
If you must have the last word, the floor is yours
Okay. Sirs, I have tried and tried and tried to explain myself to you. Line after line of text was expended trying to explain my positions to you. No matter what I said, you still said untrue things about my positions. Often you said the same untrue things I had already explained as untrue. Repeatedly saying false things when they have been explained as false is called lying by pretty much everyone I know, except perhaps you and Michael Tee. He seems to want to call it "reductio ad absurdum". You want to call it "analysis" or "reaching conclusions." There is nothing wrong with reaching a conclusion about someone else's position based on what they say. What is wrong is expressing the conclusion as if the other person said it or claimed it. What is wrong is claiming someone meant something and then continuing to insist that even when that someone bothers to correct you. These are the things you're doing, and they are not honest debate. In light of the fact that you do this repeatedly and frequently, answering a lot of questions from you so you can try to claim more falsehoods about what I said or meant would be nothing but a waste of your time and mine. That you seem upset I didn't go along with it bothers me not even a little bit. And I am not sorry that I stopped pandering to your penchant for claiming I said or meant things I did not say or mean. I'm not sorry I started calling your lies for what they are.
-
You are highly prone to wishfull thinking , what measures to prevent the spread of STDs are more than 80% effective?
Other than abstinence, I don't know, but I am not going to support government banning all sex to prevent the spread of STDs. On the other hand, legal prostitution where in prostitutes are required to be free of diseases can help prevent the spread of STDs.
Other than abstenence you do not know?
Other than abstinence no one knows !
Even getting a safety measure complyance rate nearly 80% is so extremely difficult that it may as well be discussed as fiction.
What draconian measures would be necessacery to insure that all leagal prostitutes were free of all STDs?
If a prostitute has two to six customers each night is she/he going to the all night clinic each time for a fresh test each time?
As if such tests were effective at detecting infection early in the incubation period ,
actually no they are not. More or less for each disease ,it is quite possible to be infectious before any test can detect the disease.
Regulations and licenseing on plumbing ensure that any plumber doing his job properly will produce improved safety for his customers , so much so that it is difficult to break into the business without a long apprentice period , but there is no potential for makeing regulation to license sex workers effective at promotion of public health by any means that do not regulate the very lives of the prostitutes and their customers to a high degree impossible to attain for an illicit activity .
What is your idea of an effective measure?
-
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.html (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/index.html)
How 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?"?
-
And yet again your supposed "proof" is nothing more than my conclusions of both your meaning & intent, of YOUR words. My hyperbole & sarcasm aside, there's nothing nefarious or ..........
Dear Sirs.
I am haveing a blast.
You?
-
*snicker*, as I said, it was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate", despite how off the deep-end Prince has been, in his accusations. I'm sure he means well ;)
-
*snicker*, as I said, it was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate", despite how off the deep-end Prince has been, in his accusations. I'm sure he means well ;)
I like Prince , tho it can be demanding to have a debate with him.
He is a real trooper and is willing to carry forward with dogged effort the nailing down of every niggling detail.
Sometimes to the point at which I wonder If I am speaking the same language.
It is a challenge , if I can actually improve my command of language and detailed knoledge to the point that I can produce a cogent debate with UP I will feel quite accomplished.
Meantime I must try to avoid being side tracked into recursive discussions of the debate about the quality of the debate , or little side issues such as whether exotic versions of marrage are about sex or not. Visions of eternal verbage play in my imagination and I run the danger of forgetting what my origional point was.
Really though he is debateing us both (or us all sometimes ) as if there were no work involved , can't help but admire that level of energy.
-
I concur
-
Okay. I get it. This is all about mocking me. I'm a little slow, but I get it now. I'm tempted to complain, but that would just be futile whining. Anyway, Plane, I'm glad you and Sirs had fun. You got me. You suckered me in. I guess that means you win. Congratulations. You played a good game. And I clearly lost. I just wish I had known the rules when we started.
-
Okay. I get it. This is all about mocking me. I'm a little slow, but I get it now. I'm tempted to complain, but that would just be futile whining. Anyway, Plane, I'm glad you and Sirs had fun. You got me. You suckered me in. I guess that means you win. Congratulations. You played a good game. And I clearly lost. I just wish I had known the rules when we started.
I apologise for createing such an impression!
I do not consider you to have lost anything , you have proven yourself more earnest than I am willing to be , is that loosing?
I ment what I said sans snark , debating you is demanding. I get a good workout by attempting to meet your standard.
-
Apparently Plane, criticizing of Prince is tantamount to mocking him. No wonder he didn't contribute anything more substantive in the thread about criticizing Obama is tantamount to sedition :-\
-
Apparently Plane, criticizing of Prince is tantamount to mocking him. No wonder he didn't contribute anything more substantive in the thread about criticizing Obama is tatamount to sedition :-\
I am sorry to have hurt his feelings.
UP has a wonderfull ability to be cogent , I hope he can cope whith my coping with that.
-
My feelings are not hurt. I merely realized what was going on. No big deal.
-
Yea, an attempt at serious debate. Would have been nice if we were all on the same page. No biggie though, at times even entertaining
-
You just can't let it go, can you?
-
Mirror time again
My bad, I forgot, you needed the last word. sorry
-
I have no idea what that means. Please don't explain it to me. Sirs, just accept that you and Plane won, and let it the frak alone. I'm trying to be nice here.
-
I have no idea what that means. Please don't explain it to me. Sirs, just accept that you and Plane won, and let it the frak alone. I'm trying to be nice here.
Well, I would have liked to have gotten somewhere on the actual question we started with.
I really didn't understand where you were going with trying to claim that exotic marrage arrangements were not about sex , or why this was important.
I listed several sorts of sexual relationships that either are or should be illeagal or discouraged , in answer to "what sort of sex ought to be restricted ?"
In the context of the question , where were you going by pointing out that some of these marrage relationships were non sexual?
I really didn't get the use of that , and I didn't get far past it either.
AAAAAAaaaagh!
Oh MAN!I don't approve of debateing the debate itself and now you have got me doing it!
-
I really didn't understand where you were going with trying to claim that exotic marrage arrangements were not about sex , or why this was important.
That isn't what he said. What he said was that exotic marriage arrangements were not sex acts. He had asked you to list sex acts between consenting adults that should be restricted by the government. It's important because you didn't answer his question.
-
I really didn't understand where you were going with trying to claim that exotic marrage arrangements were not about sex , or why this was important.
That isn't what he said. What he said was that exotic marriage arrangements were not sex acts. He had asked you to list sex acts between consenting adults that should be restricted by the government. It's important because you didn't answer his question.
I suppose that this is an interesting distinction , and indeed I was not makeing the distinction. Takeing for example Bigamy most states do forbid haveing two wives but do not forbid haveing two lovers.