Breaking: New Offical Democrat Party Logo

[_krose]

So you are an anarchist not a liberal?
There is seemingly no rational nor reasonable justification for the positions you list (and on and on)...so, anarchist?

I'm wondering what you think an anarchist is.

Wanting to get rid of laws against consensual adult behavior seems pretty libertarian to me. And certainly rational.

[_bcspace]

Laugh it up. Your party's constituents are dying off by the day, and the country keeps getting more liberal.

One fast fact: 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month, and therefore eligible to vote.

It's only because your party is buying their vote instead of appealing to their intellect. However, Romney did better against Obama than McCain did so your predictions of demise are just wishful thinking.

[_Tarski]

There is a big gap between supporting someone's legal right to do something and actually doing it yourself. I support legalized prostitution, but I would not hire one. I advocate legalizing drugs, but have never touched them, and still would not if they were legal. I support legalizing polygamy, but would not take another spouse. I support gay marriage, but have no interest in entering into such. And on and on....

+1

Actually, thinking about this just now, I suppose that if

1) prostitution were legal, regulated and monitored with respect to STDs etc.
and
2) I had interest in sexual activity but no discernible prospects for whatever reason,

then I might hire. Who knows? I am not sure about this but I suppose if it became a live issue for me I would research it. It is hard to imagine since I am both married and used to having sexual prospects anyway.

For me, the issue would certainly not be "chastity" that's for sure.

A more pressing issue would be what if meant for the prostitute; how did it affect her? what was her attitude? What was her history and circumstances and age? I would wonder about her being under duress and so on.
Come to think of it, any one of these issues being off could ruin the mood anyway.

As for drugs, I can't say that I have never touched them. However, for what its worth, I haven't touched (or even seen) any of the highly addictive drugs such as cocaine or heroin. Mescaline was my favorite. But that was long long ago.

[_Tarski]

Laugh it up. Your party's constituents are dying off by the day, and the country keeps getting more liberal.

One fast fact: 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month, and therefore eligible to vote.

It's only because your party is buying their vote instead of appealing to their intellect. .

says the party of the almighty dollar, the party of corporate welfare, the party that looks to multimillion dollar corporate lobbyists. The party of the perversion of democracy known as "Citizens United".

Hilarious

By the way, who bought my vote? What did I get besides a smaller paycheck due to payroll taxes bumping back up?

[_Droopy]

I support legalized prostitution, but I would not hire one. I advocate legalizing drugs, but have never touched them, and still would not if they were legal. I support legalizing polygamy, but would not take another spouse. I support gay marriage, but have no interest in entering into such. And on and on...

So you are an anarchist not a liberal?
There is seemingly no rational nor reasonable justification for the positions you list (and on and on)...so, anarchist?

What Krose is, sub, if core philosophy is the question, would probably best be expressed as nihilist, and this is the slow, agonizing death of the West and of America ever since Nietzsche, who, perhaps more than any other figure in Western philosophy, set Western man on the path to self-immolation (with substantial assistance from countless disciples and sub-disciples across the intellectual landscape since that time).

Nietzsche and Korihor are, of course, two peas in the very same, if culturally and geographically separated, pod.

[_Darth J]

What Krose is, sub, if core philosophy is the question, would probably best be expressed as nihilist, and this is the slow, agonizing death of the West and of America ever since Nietzsche, who, perhaps more than any other figure in Western philosophy, set Western man on the path to self-immolation (with substantial assistance from countless disciples and sub-disciples across the intellectual landscape since that time).

Nietzsche and Korihor are, of course, two peas in the very same, if culturally and geographically separated, pod.

Oh, God, Loran. I get dumber every time I read this damned BS you post. The failure to impose religious right value judgments on society is not nihilism. It's not really that hard to conceptualize the difference between the legal right to do something and the moral choice about whether and how to exercise that right. And as long as you're mentioning Korihor, go ahead and throw in Darth Vader or Voldemort or the Wicked Witch of the West.

[_Droopy]

Wanting to get rid of laws against consensual adult behavior seems pretty libertarian to me. And certainly rational.

This is like pointing out that Hitler, Allende, or Ortega (1985 election) were democratically elected, where "democratic," like "consensual" here (and in classic sexual revolution ideology) stand in as legitimizing principles (because they are democratic, in the one case, and mutually agreed upon (as are majority elections among a larger group), in the other) and take the place of any actual philosophical/moral critique of the phenomena at hand.

Avoiding such philosophical/moral (and, at a deeper level, theological) critique of any aspect of the human condition such as this is a part of the core function the much overused term "democracy" and the concept of consent have come to play in a increasingly disorderly and hedonistic society.

[_Darth J]

Wanting to get rid of laws against consensual adult behavior seems pretty libertarian to me. And certainly rational.

This is like pointing out that Hitler, Allende, or Ortega (1985 election) were democratically elected, where "democratic," like "consensual" here (and in classic sexual revolution ideology) stand in as legitimizing principles (because they are democratic, in the one case, and mutually agreed upon (as are majority elections among a larger group), in the other) and take the place of any actual philosophical/moral critique of the phenomena at hand.

Avoiding such philosophical/moral (and, at a deeper level, theological) critique of any aspect of the human condition such as this is a part of the core function the much overused term "democracy" and the concept of consent have come to play in a increasingly disorderly and hedonistic society.

Yeah. A dictator seizing power is analogous to consenting adults in a democracy choosing how to conduct their private lives. Real freedom is imposing on society the taboos you have co-opted from Hebrew tribal mythology.

Dear God, the stupid hurts.

[_Droopy]

Oh, God, Loran. I get dumber...

Is this even possible? I read this and that old Kiss song, "you got, got nothin' to lose" started running through my head.

every time I read this f*****g b***s*** you post.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Darth.

The failure to impose religious right value judgments on society is not nihilism.

Don't go there, Darth. You're in the deep end now.

It's not really that hard to conceptualize the difference between the legal right to do something and the moral choice about whether and how to exercise that right.

So all things legal are not moral, but let's ask the question: should all immoral things be legal, or are there limits and boundaries past which legalization of certain immoral culturally acidic things become a threat to the very open, liberty maximizing political/social order that allows and protects those extensions of legal right?

And as long as you're mentioning Korihor, go ahead and throw in Darth Vader or Voldemort or the Wicked Witch of the West.

Korihor's a far more interesting character.

[_Droopy]

quote="Droopy" quote="krose"

Wanting to get rid of laws against consensual adult behavior seems pretty libertarian to me. And certainly rational.

This is like pointing out that Hitler, Allende, or Ortega (1985 election) were democratically elected, where "democratic," like "consensual" here (and in classic sexual revolution ideology) stand in as legitimizing principles (because they are democratic, in the one case, and mutually agreed upon (as are majority elections among a larger group), in the other) and take the place of any actual philosophical/moral critique of the phenomena at hand.

Avoiding such philosophical/moral (and, at a deeper level, theological) critique of any aspect of the human condition such as this is a part of the core function the much overused term "democracy" and the concept of consent have come to play in a increasingly disorderly and hedonistic society.

Yeah. A dictator seizing power is analogous to consenting adults in a democracy choosing how to conduct their private lives. Real freedom is imposing on society the taboos you have co-opted from Hebrew tribal mythology.

Dear God, the stupid hurts.

So, so far over your head, but to the wicked, as Paul tells us, the gospel, or any one or body of its truths, are "foolishness."

As Joseph said, "The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God.”