| Author | Message | ||
     Seanp |
Blake, I'm confused. You argue that morality does not flow from the majority, yet you refer to the majority opposing abortion, opposing Obamacare, and wanting a secure border. What exactly are you getting at here? Is it moral to oppose abortion? Then how does that jibe with your previous statement about the relationship between morality and the majority? And I'd be hesitant to call out any member on this board regarding their education or lack thereof. There are many types of education that have nothing to do with going to college. And telling Midnightrider that he needs to get his money back is quite petty. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I'm jumping in a bit late here, but on the issue of ~30% of women engaging in sodomy (both oral and anal), it has been my experience that it is much closer to 100%. I didn't read the whole thread, but I think I get the gist of it. My opinion: Don't ask, don't tell is perfect the way it is. Since when is an individual's sexuality a determining criteria in whether they are fit to serve? Last time I checked, you don't join the military to get laid. You join to defend our country. You don't have sex while on duty, you have it while off duty. Talking about it while on duty is a distraction from your duties. So don't do it. | ||
| Moxnix |
Gee, it sure appears to my jaundiced eyeballs (that) television is a huge vehicle for propaganda, not just in the news, but throught regular fare which treats most issues, in the form of a fictionalized story, promotes social and political agendas. This includes sexual promiscuity, gay lifestyles, liberal politics and they complete buffet of material that denounces and ridicules Christians, convervatives, the traditionally moral, the chronically law abiding, yadda, yadda, . . . . Odd, what, that the very hated Fox News has the highest ratings. Seems there might be a remnant of those who actually didn't get degrees in underwater basketweaving and the full monty indoctrination in liberalism. See, my cornucopia of opinions keeps flowing. Someone block this thread before I type again. | ||
| Blake |
I always thought a cornucopia was a fairly small curved pointy container with some gourds in it that pilgrims let spill out on the table.  >>> Blake, I'm confused. You argue that morality does not flow from the majority, yet you refer to the majority opposing abortion, opposing Obamacare, and wanting a secure border. What exactly are you getting at here? Is it moral to oppose abortion? Then how does that jibe with your previous statement about the relationship between morality and the majority? Sean, Your confusion is understandable. My point was threefold: One, that majority rule is not innately moral. That is fact proved by history. Two, that we do not have majority rule in America. That too is fact. America has never been a Democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. The difference is significant and very much intented by our nation's founders. Three, that majority opinion in America may not be echoed by law or by gov't policy. This is fact borne out by the referenced issues. We happen to be fortunate that currently the majority of Americans do support the moral side of some issues. That may not always be the case--the trend runs opposite--and indeed was not always the case; see slavery for instance. It will certainly not remain the case that morality rules the day on issues if those on the other side enjoy ever more success with their agenda; see homosexual "marriage." The fact that the gov't is able to ignore the will of the people testifies to that disappointing trend. Thus even if morality did flow innately from the majority, it is no guarantee that gov't will follow suite, especially with dishonest, ideologues legislating from the bench. Thus the entire notion that "whatever path we take as our society evolves, that path will ultimately be determined and the society governed in accordance with the values, votes and moral sense of a majority of the nation's citizens" is unsupportable. It isn't true now and there is no guarantee that it will be true in the future. | ||
| Blake |
Mox, Spill forth. I learn a lot from the smart folks here on both sides of the issues. Thoughtful discussion rocks. Doesn't the whole issue really boil down to the question of what behavior(s) do we find tolerable, versus intolerable? It is not that we refuse to draw a line distinguishing the boundaries between tolerable and intolerable behaviors, but where that line is drawn. A line must be drawn somewhere, else murder and chaos rule; see Sodom and Gomorrah. It's rare to find a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle who will acknowledge even that most basic fact. Relativists too refuse to recognized absolute laws of morality. On one side are folks who recognize truth. On the other are those who seek to deny and run from truth. We have free will and I support liberty. Adults must be allowed to behave consensually in private as they wish. Our government, our laws, our military, however, should not be obliged to endorse behavior that is harmful and irresponsible. The activist judges need to go. | ||
| Blake |
Matt, Speaking for myself on the women engaging in sodomy issue, I was speaking to the anal variety. I'd never heard sodomy defined to include fellatio before this discussion. I don't think many have. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I didn't get my degree in underwater basketweaving.... I failed the practical when I accidentally pulled the plug out of the bathtub.  | ||
| Moxnix |
Grumps, I used to know some psychology students at university who didn't have enough mental health to share with future clients, so we probably have them working for our government. Somehow, few aside from we of the chronically cynical see such heroes of the modern studenthood as Karl Marx and Siggy Freud as two of the biggest con artists of the last few centuries. Kids these days just learn how to play a game, without developing the critical thinking that allows them to understand they have the choice NOT to play it. Usually, I just hunker down and put up my quills when they celebrate diplomas in fields invented in the last few decades. Were the masses encouraged to study history, physics, mathematics, literature and the like, I wonder if we would have the graffiti covering Europe and the US while societal standards failed to climb, while lowbrow became highbrow, while pervasive celebration of the id discounted the elements of classical education. | ||
| Moxnix |
http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-blatte r-gaycomment http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html Blake fix hyperlink.  | ||
| Moxnix |
A nod and tip of the hat to Vorsprung durch Technik. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
My personal belief, is that commercial television is to blame. The only things that seem to count is how things appear to be, rather than how they really are, & how much money you can make doing so. I'm eternally grateful to my parents for getting me hooked on books. | ||
| Blake |
The idiocy that comes out of ideologues mouths sometimes still amazes me...
Other people that are forced to be dishonest or be fired... Pedophiles, zoophile, polygamists, prostitutes, pornographic models/actors, drug dealers, drug abusers, drug runners, recreational drug users, thieves, robbers, mobsters, racketeers, illicit gamblers, vandals/taggers, ... Make the job they are applying for one that requires some level of security clearance and the list explodes, starting with adulterers, philanderers, problem debtors, drunkards, communists, anarchists, homosexuals, those of poor character, those exhibiting poor behavior/choices, those lacking integrity. You can be refused for the person you may be dating or may have only met, or not met but both attendance the same seminar, or for the nations you may have traveled to. I despise idiots. | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
there's a difference there Blake. Pedophiles, zoophile, polygamists, prostitutes, drug dealers, drug abusers, drug runners, recreational drug users, thieves, robbers, mobsters, racketeers, illicit gamblers, vandals/taggers, ... Those are all illegal. Apart from some antiquated sex laws that target it, homosexuality isn't illegal. At least not in this country. Your comparison isn't exactly correct. | ||
| Buellinmke |
Do you know where homosexuality is illegal Blake? Iran. Why do you want for the United States of America, also known as the land of the free, to be just like Iran? If you hate freedom so much, then why don't you leave? We don't need freedom haters in the United States of America! I despise idiots. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Jumping in late. Everyone OK with that? I was in the Army about fifty years ago. I can still remember being hit on by gays, and other morale lowering incidents caused by gays. However, like any other politically correct Buelligan I oppose discrimination of any kind. I mean, I even put my salt and pepper in the same shaker! After all these years, I finally have come up with the perfect solution to the problem. Pass a law that says ONLY GAYS CAN BE SOLDIERS. I know this may sound a little unorthodox, but just consider the advantages: 1. Huge savings in defense expenditure for armies world wide. Since only about 10% of the population is gay, with all other things being equal, we would have a much smaller Army. 90% smaller, I figure. Of course all other countries would have to accept the same policy, but the way things are going over at the UN, I don't see this as a big problem. 2. Less violent wars. Just saying a whole bunch of gays having a spat probably no one gets hurt. Not real sure about this one. 3. Smarter looking troops. I don't want to sound like I got something against straight guys, but let's be real here, gay guys have better taste. I mean they got their own TV Show about it, am I right? Any questions, men?  | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, DADT is a law where you are told to lie. The other examples you cite are people who choose to lie. There is a difference. While I disagree with you on the potential downsides to allowing gays in the military, and could be wrong, you have to agree that the Clintonian logic behind DADT is destructive to all involved. It should end. Allowing gays to serve openly is another matter, it's the Congressional ^*(%tards that put it together with ending DADT for political reasons. Gentleman_jon, I agree except for #2. Only the curses exchanged would be different. "oh no you don't b8tch!" | ||
| Blake |
Curtis, I was commenting on the congressman's idiotic remark. That said, you conveniently deleted the pornographic models/actors, and you failed to note that prostitution is indeed legal in some locales. Mike, I'm not arguing that homosexuality should be illegal. You try read better. Patrick, DADT doesn't tell anyone to lie. It tells them to keep quiet. | ||
| Moxnix |
So much temptation to add a few things. So little political correctness in any of them. | ||
| Blake |
Please do. I forgot pimps. | ||
| Moxnix |
Insert photo-shopped long-legged mack-daddy with large hat and loud clothes image here X as he pimps the means of democracy for his socialist ends. | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
yes Blake I left out pornography on purpose. I'm pretty sure porno actors and actors don't have to lie about what they do. They might choose to but they don't have to. Also prostitutes don't have to lie about what they do in states where it's legal but they do have to lie about it everywhere else. But to tie that into the discussion. Are there laws on the books that would not allow a porn star or legal prostitute to serve in the military? Since they have laws that prevent homosexuals I wouldn't be surprised. | ||
| Moxnix |
Moral turpitude openly acknowledged would likely preclude one from serving. It appears, as it has long appeared, that some of us are in one consensus reality based on agreement in beliefs, opinions, and statement of same. Clearly, the collective opinion of others supports a different morality. I wonder how many fathers want their daughters to become prostitutes or porn stars, or their sons for that matter. If one is of the collective opinion (that) anal intercourse is normal, it is (then) my subjective opinion that that person is a product of poor toilet training. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
It appears, as it has long appeared, that some of us are in one consensus reality based on agreement in beliefs, opinions, and statement of same. Clearly, the collective opinion of others supports a different morality. I came to that conclusion long ago and "checked out" of this thread back then. However, defining the opposing position as having a different morality goes too far, unless you are referring to tolerance, respect for privacy, and freedom as being the different morality. | ||
| Moxnix |
Back to topic, DADT gets through a vote in Wa(r)shington, despite concerns of the US Air Force and US Marines. Well, the Gerrry Studds wannabees in congress could care less. Ramping down military standards, and our national security thereby, to satisfy those with a particular sexual bend, and that bend seen by the majority of those affected as a proclivity, well . . . . . once again it appears the the world is upside down. | ||
| Moxnix |
H*ll yes I'm saying the opposing position has a different morality. And, that opposition is loud about it's intolerance of those who hold views other than their own. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
DADT repeal is going to die in the Senate, which was what was predicted when the whole "pot stirring thing" got started. Unless there is a major shift in positions, nothing is going to get done in the Senate before the break unless there is movement on the tax bill. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
H*ll yes I'm saying the opposing position has a different morality. And, that opposition is loud about it's intolerance of those who hold views other than their own. Its a loggerhead, each group has core beliefs that are in direct opposition of each other. Both sides are "loud and proud" of their position. And furthermore, each "faction" is going to hold on to their beliefs as tightly as a drowning man does to a life ring. Edit: and there is a sizable portion of the population that couldn't care less, and hates when either group tries to impose their position on them or tries the ploy "you're with us or against us, there is no in between". (Message edited by sayitaintso on December 16, 2010) (Message edited by sayitaintso on December 16, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
The military rejects applicants all the time for any number of reasons not involving lawfulness. They have a code of conduct and set standards which must be met. Some applicants would have to lie about their academic performance in order to even be considered. But the bottom line is that homosexuals need not lie if they wish to serve. The congressman is an idiot. | ||
| Moxnix |
Hate is an emotion and that sizable portion of the population enjoys experiencing the sensation of that emotion. TV effects people's emotions. As does the political circus. I'm so full of myself, it's natural for me to suggest to everyone else to recognize when they are experiencing an emotion and learn to react to that emotion as something that has no control over them. My participation here is a self-satisfying form of retrospective ventriloquism that allows me to experience the sensation of amusement. Thank goodness for forums. | ||
| Rich |
 |
