Blacks are great opponents of bigotry. Except when they are against gays, asians and hispanics.Originally Posted by sheepshead
Blacks are great opponents of bigotry. Except when they are against gays, asians and hispanics.
Harlan, you are very passionate. The idea that people should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new - it has been around since the dawn of mankind. . The idea that an overarching government is necessary for this to work other than by free will is a recent invention. And the last 100 years you refer to haven't provided a sterling endorsement for government enforcement of 'the common good.' Desperate folks looking for a better life through collectivism and government control spawned Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. If you look throughout the history of the United States and the colonies, you will actually find that free men, working together voluntarily, accomplished great things and lived extremely well, all without intrusive government control. The great experiment you talk of has been tried and it is the only one that produced fantastic wealth, fantastic increases in standard of living, and opportunity. Unfortunately it is starting to fail, because people want to usher back in the protection of a great leader and a great government that will care for all our needs.The idea that government should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new, it has building for about 250 years, and especially the last 100 years.
IT seems that you, Partial, Wist, AynRand believe we can return to the world of 1800, when men were men and people fended for themselves. Charles Dickens wrote about the early 19th century, have a look. The great experiement of small government and unbridled enterprise has already been tried.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Exactly what I have said many times--except I framed it as a good thing.Blacks are great opponents of bigotry. Except when they are against gays, asians and hispanics.
Black people are indeed, moral and normal on social issues to an even greater extent than white people--which makes it a damn shame that 95% or so of them vote CONTRARY to those pristine values like opposing homosexuality.
How did this thread get hijacked onto the government/collectivism versus individualism discussion?
What you are ignoring or overlooking, Harlan, is that collectivism has invariably resulted in the societies practicing it being dragged down, while the cumulative effect of the self interest of individuals--which is the essence of free enterprise capitalism--has invariably resulted in prosperity and the collective uplifting of all. The glitch in the system--which you cited--is that unregulated capitalism sometimes turns on itself in the form of monopolies--which stifle all those lofty collective benefits rooted in individual self interest.
Modern-day liberals, closet socialists that most of them are, would throw out the baby with the bath water by crippling the prosperity brought to us by our magnificent American free enterprise capitalist system.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Though this may be, the guy was dead-on with respect to the picking and choosing of Biblical laws to obey.West Wing: the television show that fantasized about liberal issues and presented weekly smackdowns of evil, hateful Republicans, allowing liberal ladies to survive the Bush era by pretending the President was really a Democrat.
Agreed with the context thing. People are always quoting the Quran out of context to purport that it preaches hate.
1. The lack of production ability doesn't necessarily mean that raising ability is impaired. What are the necessary ingredients to raise a child anyway?Well, that's actually 3 questions, but semantics aside, I am happy to answer them.One question. Why?
What happens if a child is adopted by a gay couple?
What do you feel will be the outcome?
1. Why? = Because God, Divinity Nature saw fit to have to sexes necessary to produce.
2. What if? = The child has no chance at being adopted by a hetero couple, which I feel, is a bad thing.
3. Outcome = The big unknown. At best, they will spread the word that being Gay is a nice thing. At worst, they will be taught that being Gay is the ONLY thing.
It remains unnatural any way you want to spin it.
I might lose any credibility I ever had here on this forum over this issue. I might lose all of my friends. That would really sadden me a great deal. But I will defend my position irrationally until I die. And that position is very very clear.
"Gays should never be entrusted with the rearing of our offspring. Ever"
Teach the kid love, respect, and perspective. You're telling me gay people can't do that?
2. Heterosexual couples get first preference, so this isn't an issue.
3. Here's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Homosexuality is not a choice. Not a socialized behavior. I find it impossible to believe that someone would CHOOSE to face a life of ridicule, hardship, and avoidance.
Who?Agreed with the context thing. People are always quoting the Quran out of context to purport that it preaches hate.
Indeed. I find it even harder to believe a "loving parent" would subject his adoptive offspring to exactly this environment consciously. Gay adoptive "parents" indeed choose this environment for their charges.
Homosexual love is clearly egotistical. Completely and utterly. It is all about "ME". "I want to fuck men, but I want a child, despite the fact that 88% of humans are not like me, despite the fact that my partner and I cannot reproduce because neither of us has ever has a womb.
I am a better parent, because I know the difference between red and scarlet. I can sing 'I will survive' verbatim and I know Prado shoes from fake Luis Vuitton handbags!!! Screeeech and schrieeeeek "
Look, homo, buy a fucking goldfish.
whaT?Indeed. I find it even harder to believe a "loving parent" would subject his adoptive offspring to exactly this environment. Gay adoptive "parentzs" ideed choose this environment for their charges.
Homosexual love is clearly egotistical. Completely and utterly. It is all about "ME". I want a child, despite the fact that 88% of humans are not like me, despite the fact that my partner and i cannot reproduce.
Look, homo, buy a fucking goldfish.
What what?
in the buttWhat what?
GOTCHA
What?in the buttWhat what?
GOTCHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU
in all seriousness though Tarlam, I respect your opinion, but am simultaneously saddened by it.
Mozart, it is the single thing on this planet that makes me truly want to throw up apart from hideous crimes against children and women and animals.
Obviously, my first wrath is against pedophiles and women beaters/ rapists, then animal torturers and murders.
Then come the gays that want to adopt.
For me, a non violent honest thief has more honour.
Mind you, I still have nothing against to consenting gays "uniting".
thats okay tarlam - i still like you! in my mind, there are numerous different factors that make households unsuitable or unsafe for child raising...I don't see same sex parents as one of them.
I am not well versed in Newspeak. Where is the hate?psst.
cy.
your hate is showing
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
You make an excellent point and as a society, we really should be working on safening the domestic environment, especially for children. Mozart, I agree with that!!
I am not suggesting gay parents pose a threat. On the contrary, from what I have learned from all of you that support gay adoptions, they make even better parents!
Doesn't make it biologically correct, though, does it!!!
I live with a girl that seemingly can't have kids. I love her to death. She's 41.
In February, we were all gaga, because I still had a job and we thought she was pregnant. I already have two and she is yet to enjoy motherhood. Anyways, turns out she's missing that special hormone that allows the fertilized egg to "nest". Poor kid. I can't help her, and we are too old to adopt.
But, Gerhard Schröder at 59 years old called his pal Boris Jelzin and got a Russian infant adopted within a fucking week.
So, there seems to be no moral high or low ground, just what there is.
Irrationally, I will continue to plead against Gay adoptions.
HOFer
I thought you could get that hormone artificially??
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
And WHY is a viewpoint like this even controversial?
Even I would not oppose letting consenting gays "unite"--although I would probably phrase it as letting same sex ass-fuckers practice their abomination.
It is refreshing, however, to see the closest thing we have to a true middle-of-the-roader we have like Tarlam acknowledge that homosexuality is right up there with those other abominations.
Letting consenting adults do what they want to do in private is one thing. Letting them inflict their perversion on society in general and potentially adopted kids in particular crosses the line.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Cy: Yeah, and this idea got a jump start with the early Progressive movement. You remember that, right, those eggheads who went over to Mussolini's fascist Italy and concluded that it was a brilliant system. The Progressives who had a civilian corps looking around for "un-patriotic" people who rejected the idea of collective rights.The idea that government should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new, it has building for about 250 years, and especially the last 100 years.
IT seems that you, Partial, Wist, AynRand believe we can return to the world of 1800, when men were men and people fended for themselves. Charles Dickens wrote about the early 19th century, have a look. The great experiement of small government and unbridled enterprise has already been tried.
Your's is an argument of historical determination, that "history is going in this direction, and so we'd better just accept it."
But mine is an argument of morality. Where is the morality in forcing a man at gunpoint to give his hard earned wealth to another? Where is the morality in that? Please tell me.
You all need to read "Liberal Fascism" and then read "The Forgotten Man."
Your conclusion, Harlan, is actually the reverse: Collectivism has been tried before, and it has failed abjectly, miserably, and often at great cost to human life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote