| Author | Message | ||
     Arbalest |
Pwznor, I read somewhere (long ago) that in Japan, withholding taxes on income (not sure if it is just wages) ARE your taxes. No forms, no refunds, no bureaucracy. | ||
| H0gwash |
I think the problem with the Illinois case was an anti-discrimination state law that applied. Not all states have them. I'm not sure if the law would have applied had the B&B been a private club instead. It used to be legal for relatives to exclude the other partner from hospital visitation, and to take valuables from the partners' house and destroy the surviving partner's property that was not valuable. This could be justified as the family's last ditch attempt to 'ungay' their son and collect their valuable family assets. Mike and I are not married. We considered it when it became legal, but did not like the complications to health care and personal debt and credit we thought it would bring. Instead we kept the trusts we already had which protected mutual assets and hospital access anyway, and it shortcuts probate if I understand correctly. | ||
| Blake |
Small-minded people are in no shortage in any walk of life or sector of society. Forcing people to violate their sincere faith and conscience is just so awfully wrong. It goes against everything our nation was founded for. The LGBT warriors have essentially imposed their religion upon us all. It isn't just Illinois. There are similar cases all over the place. It takes a special kind of miscreant to behave so vindictively, someone with exceptionally low self-esteem, or someone out to cause trouble (neo-Marxists). The militant, perennially indignant activists are likely a tiny mean-spirited minority who are interested in activism for the sake of activism and/or the promotion of identity politics. (Message edited by blake on December 08, 2016) | ||
| H0gwash |
I suppose we should be happy that these fanatics don't believe in personal gun ownership. | ||
| Blake |
I understand that with the Trumpster election, many are changing their stance on that. LOL! | ||
| Torquehd |
I suppose we should be happy that these fanatics don't believe in personal gun ownership. Are you implying that gun owners believe that using guns is an acceptable method for enforcing their beliefs upon others? If you are, I don't care, there aren't many things that offend me. But, examine your prejudices. Stereotypes exist for a reason - many of them are valid, but some are not. If it's true it's true, but if it's being shoved down your throat, it may not be. | ||
| H0gwash |
I think compared to the church, business in the public realm is necessarily a dirty place. For a business, I don't see why the gay group of sinners is more sinful than the other sinners. | ||
| H0gwash |
On the guns, I suppose it makes it easier to talk about. I think many liberals think of gun ownership as an unwanted responsibility burden. I think some fanatics use guns recklessly, like the Comet Pizza kid who fired a round into the restaurant floor. I think it's a small percentage getting lots of coverage because there is a lot of interest in those stories now. | ||
| Torquehd |
The original article included two key words, three key concepts: 1. marriage 2. (to her) stepdaughter Gay marriage has been around for a little bit, that was nothing new. The NEW part was the legal approval of an incestuous relationship. Hogwash, yes, I'm a sinner, but the difference is, I don't go telling other people that there's nothing wrong with sin. I'll tell you that it's wrong for me to lust or speed or get drunk or be proud or lie. It would also be wrong for me to uncover my family member's nakedness. The key concept of this whole subject is; the source of morality. Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or is there only social/situational morality? If an entire country determines that humans who belong to a certain race are worthy of death, is that ok? Or is there something beyond mutual agreement that tells you, "this is wrong?" If the majority of a nation decides that anyone who doesn't belong to their religion should be locked in a cage and burned to death or beheaded, is that ok? If a very small number of folks who are supposed to represent all citizens of a country decide that it's just fine for a mom to legally have sex with her daughter, is that OK? What if it's grandpa and a consenting prepubescent grandchild? Is there such a thing as morality? If so, where does it come from? | ||
| Aesquire |
....because there is a lot of interest in those stories now. The "Interest" is artificial, built around an agenda of disarming the peasants. That is, mostly, a different war on Western Civilization. Some firmly believe that some of the leaders of the activists are following the same ideology, and just using others to gain power. It's a technique that's quite old, but it's codified in the Alinsky cult ( the American prophet for the Marxist Church. ) I'm pretty sure there's some of that, up at the top, just as I'm sure there are a few fake "conservatives" using sex to scare people and whip up hate-power. At the human level, I draw the line quite simply... Consenting Adults. Happy to argue my case. Toss in a healthy dose of None Of Your Business, and I'm pretty much done on the subject. BTW... A question on the original post's issue... since the link doesn't work. Mother & Step-Daughter? No blood relation? I don't see the problem there. It all depends on many details we don't know. Mom marries guy with daughter? Is there abuse? Whatever made this pair decide to stick together, there's no doubt a long and very nasty story. Anyway... trying to find the original article, I stumbled across this essay... and it should be required reading for Step-Dads. It's not nice, but it's honest and frightening. http://mattforney.com/not-marry-single-mom-daughte r/ | ||
| Torquehd |
Aesquire, what's your basis for "consenting adults"? What defines consent, or adult, and why does that matter? If a valedictorian 17 year old wants to have sex, is she an adult? What about a 15 year old single mother who is working part time and attending college classes? 18 is a number made up by our .gov, so what's the definition of "adult"? And consent - "yes means yes, no means no". But what about a lack of objection? If I touch my wife and she doesn't fight me, is that consent? Not technically, but you know how that typically would go. AND, WHY? what does adult or consent have anything to do with anything? Muslim men are free to claim any POW female as a wife. Are you saying their morality is wrong? Muhamed married his cousin, Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old cousin. Is that all kosher? Or hallal? Or constitutional? Or ok? What's your basis for "OK"? From where do you establish your opinions, and what if other people disagree with you? How should the general public determine what is right? If 51% agree that homosexuals shouldn't marry, then they can't in a simple democracy. Morality is way more complicated that an individual's personal feelings. WHY do your believe what you believe, and WHY should I believe what you believe? (Message edited by torquehd on December 09, 2016) | ||
| H0gwash |
Morality and legality are community based. While they will be generally similar over a broad area, you will find variation in different pockets within the community. Personally I think incestuous sex is kinda icky but I don't have much of a stake in it so I don't care that others who have much more to lose wish to engage in it if the locals support it. Morality and legality don't correspond exactly. If you have a business in the public realm, know your local laws and prepare accordingly. Some tolerance is required in an open and peaceful society. Incompatible elements are best controlled by large distances and personal control. (Message edited by h0gwash on December 09, 2016) | ||
| Torquehd |
If morality is community based, then slavery of blacks in America was correct 150 years ago? If the majority of Pakistan believes that a woman who gets raped is guilty of adultry and deserves physical abuse as punishment, but the man who raped her is innocent unless there were 4 male witnesses, then that's totally cool for them? It's cool for Kim Jong Un to starve North Koreans to death, or for ISIS to rape Christians or homosexuals, or for the Chinese Government to imprison, murder, and harvest the organs from citizens who practice Falun Gong as a religion? Yes, legality is generally community based. But that does not means it's therefore RIGHT. If it seems "ikcy" or "wrong" but is legal, it should be questioned, at least. (Message edited by torquehd on December 09, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
Good. You found the definition of Adult lacking. That's because the idiocy of 21 for booze ( because the young punks are taking over our bar..... just like we did ) pure arbitrary age = adult is bogus. If you go on biology. ... 25 for boys. The part of the brain that judges risk is under developed until at least that age..... maybe 28. 15 for girls. No one's going to go by those numbers but in a silly narrow sense they are rational. Still arbitrary. Maybe a written test?  Simply it's too hard for most societies to properly determine maturity. For individuals. That's why it's arbitrary. Consent? Is no objection consent? Are they awake? Sentient? Then maybe. Face it. If they don't like your actions you are in trouble anyway. "Too embarrassed to stop him" so it behooves us to be courteous & pleasing. Yes both terms are subject to some interpretation. As far as Islamist laws on rapes. .... what does your faith call for? Mine calls to protect the weak. I've been lucky. I've never interrupted a rape. I'm not in prison for the proper response. I'm unlucky. I've never interrupted a rape. Never had the chance to stop one and destroy the rapist. ( I do keep an eye out for the chance ) Both statements are true. | ||
| Aesquire |
Someday we should discuss the ethical & practical questions of spouse abuse. The problem that almost every civilized response increases the odds of the abused being murdered. Tell the brute off. Rage. Takes it out on her. ( or him ) Call the cops. Rage. Takes it out........ Punch him, hard, warn him off..... Rage. Takes it out.... Spirit her away to "safety". Yeah. ..... like that'll work. Not only is the law on his side the number of likely victims just went up.... maybe a lot. You're left with the uncivilized response having the best likelihood of saving the abuse victim. The side effects are severe however. | ||
| Aesquire |
Torque..... is stepdaughter incest? How? The link I posted above, points out the moral issues with Dad-stepdaughter but it may not be incest. ( it's way deeper level of hell, perhaps, but there may not be a genetic reason ) You got a fresh link to the original story? What on earth led to the desire to get hitched with these two? Horror story or? | ||
| Hootowl |
I read the original story. They're of a similar age. Hubby died a few months after the wedding. The two women, both adults, fell in love. It's also important to note that this did not happen in the US, so the law, as we know it, isn't relevant, nor does this set precedent in US law. They are not related (or are as related as the rest of us) so this is not incest. The judge made the correct decision. | ||
| Aesquire |
Thanks. Come to think of it, without artificial aid beyond normal medicine, 2 girls can't produce offspring anyway. So while a taboo, and I think a bit of a potential psychological issue, incest between to gals is not a genetic problem. Just an attitude one. Still, those taboos are for a reason beyond the genetic one. Though looking at inbred royal families tells you that's good enough reason. Not being a shrink, I don't have the technobabble to properly describe the reasons, but arrested social development is probably one. ...then they can't in a simple democracy. And that's why democracy doesn't work. 2 wolves voting to eat the sheep. The Peloponnesian wars were started when a charismatic speaker talked the people of Athens into going to war. ( for loot and power ) It was one of those "we won but got so hammered it was a net loss" wars and went on for years. Besides, I bet I can find 3 wretched souls in your neighborhood that can be easily convinced to vote against you on your privilege to ride those noisy motorcycles on our streets. ( especially if they watched "Sons Of Anarchy" ) Yes, morality is a cultural thing. The Soviet Leaders had spent their entire lives being indoctrinated that what they did was in accordance with the science to Revolutionary Evolution. The refugee in London, or Munich, or Akron, who rapes the little girl has had a lifetime indoctrination that little girls are subhuman, and not real people. Ditto the prison camp guards for Kim jon Fatty who starve & work to death those dangerous elements of society. Who had a bible or bought some black market food to keep their baby alive. Sometimes the culture is sick and wrong. Islam is a deliberately constructed cult by a warlord with issues to build an army to conquer the world. Marxism... not a warlord, but a spoiled brat... otherwise, same deal. Scientology? Bar bet. Then greedy minions and a coup. AND, WHY? what does adult or consent have anything to do with anything? Consent between sentient beings or it's rape. Adult or they are incapable of giving consent. Sure the "Adult" part is problematic. I've known 15 year olds more mature than 35 year olds. Heck, look at many people in tears because they believe Huffpo! Why do I believe so? Years of thought and thoughtless interaction. Observation, and an attitude informed by many sources in the past millennia. Consenting Adults is the MINIMUM standard, extras are debatable. WHY should I believe what you believe? It may not matter at all that you believe what I believe. I'm not trying to get you to buy the package of morals I find good, I just propose the absolute minimum that any western civilization should stand by and freely admit that the rest is open for argument and persuasion. Gay? don't care, have fun. Have a foot fetish? don't care have fun. Some oddity of sex I've never heard of with consenting adults? don't care, have fun. Rape? Care, will make an effort to be sure you won't have fun. | ||
| Blake |
Gerard, "For a business, I don't see why the gay group of sinners is more sinful than the other sinners." They're not, not necessarily even in church. The issue was never one of who or who not to serve. The issue, constantly misrepresented by the liars who run our news media, concerned material participation in an event that sincerely troubled each particular defendant's conscience. In at least one case the plaintiffs had been customers, and the defendant had sold them their services happily. They just declined to participate in the "wedding". | ||
| Blake |
Do you really believe that morality is community based? Is there nothing that is objectively wrong no matter what a community might think, torturing and killing a small child for amusement for instance? If a community thought that was okay—and there have been such communities, have no doubt—then it would be okay? Aren't some things really truly objectively wrong? | ||
| Blake |
Well Patrick, but that's just your culture telling you that rape is wrong. It's not REALLY wrong. As you say, see the cultures where it is tolerated. I think we agree that rape really is objectively wrong. Thus morality in that case and others like it is not a mere cultural affectation. It's something much more profound. | ||
| Aesquire |
Frankly I don't give a frack if my community celebrates rape as a sacrament to Baal. I'm well aware that it's more than a bit nuts to become a vigilante and seek out evil..... I'm not Batman, or a millionaire with a secret weapons company. Stalking the night to strike fear in the hearts....etc. is a comic book notion. Plus I'm too old & slow.  If I am unlucky enough to happen upon an assault, I'm likely to interfere. Screw local perversion. You stand against those who harm or you're part of their cover. Admittedly, there's more than one reason I don't go to lands conquered by the Man made evil cults. I'd be killed as a loudmouth/heretic. If/When those cults conquer my home, the result, for me, is the same. With no option to be peaceful, except abject surrender to evil, might as well start collecting those who will serve me in Hel. But since it looks like Hillary won't be Queen this week, I'm not worried about that. | ||
| Aesquire |
Seriously, can you see me as a tourist in....say....Cuba? "And here's where Che murdered twenty people in cold blood to terrorize the town, & then wrote in his diary how much he loved shooting people. Over there is where Castro starved thousands in a death camp, now the luxury hotel that pays his Brother all the profits, and..... unhand me! Call the Embassy! The King is a Fink!"....... | ||
| Blake |
Hahahah, it would make for an interesting documentary. I might agree to take on the role of hidden cameraman. So personal feelings aside, are we agreeing that despite what some cultures or communities might think to the contrary, some truly harmful actions are absolutely objectively wrong? | ||
| H0gwash |
It sounds like you will have to name the things that are truly objectively wrong, because I can't find one without exceptions. If the community is not interested in enforcing morals I'm not sure those morals actually exist in that community. While we have a lot of laws that are not enforced, it seems the ones that are may be the best indicator of what is objectively wrong but even then if you look at pockets in the community you will always find some dissent on a variety of things. In the case of the Bed and Breakfast lawsuit, it seems this is the result of formal community review of the situation after 5 years. Maybe they can get it overturned or appeal the decision, but it does sound like Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast advertises wedding services to the public but also wants to refuse service to unspecified parts of the public. Maybe they should stop advertising services that they don't choose to provide. Maybe they figure $30K is well worth not burning in eternal hellfire. If I thought I would go postal ballistic if I was forced to host a wedding I did not agree with, I would not be present, I would hire someone else to do it for me at my place and if it turned out to be a disaster and I had to refund the profit, GOOD THEN CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T TRY. If my community voted into law something about torturing children for entertainment I think that would clearly mean Yes, they think it's okay, but I don't, and I would be happy to move out ASAP before I became their next source of entertainment. I'll try to think of things that are objectively right or wrong, but no promises I'll be productive. (Message edited by h0gwash on December 10, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not going to argue objective morality. Slippery subject and no matter how well I think I can define it, someone will have an attack on my definition. .. that attack could be logical could be bogus. "Have you quit beating your wife?" I also simply don't care. If the whole town wants to hurt people it's not right. You don't determine ethics by democratic votes. Long term conditioning? May codify & fossilize the taboos but doesn't make them right. Of course if the whole town except for me thinks it's normal to do human sacrifice to the Old Ones, I'm in deep trouble anyway. | ||
| Torquehd |
Mother & Step-Daughter? No blood relation? My son is adopted. But he's still my son, blood or not. I appreciate that he is legally recognized as my son, and not just my "dependent"; I'm the only father he's ever known. Sorry, I'm digressing - the issue is that a man and woman got married. Then the guy died, and his daughter and his wife started having relations with eachother. I worked with a guy a few years back (at a HD/Buell dealership in fact); I'd heard a rumor that he married his ex-stopmom. Now I was on good terms with this guy and knew I could openly ask him about it and he said, yeah, that's what happened. I said, "That's so wierd!" He replied something like, "yeah it is,but that's life". He confirmed that it was weird. It's not just weird because it's uncommon (although you could argue that it's uncommon because it's weird). The issue is that you're having relations with your fathers exwife. Instead of respecting your father, and his wife, and the respective relationship between the three parties, it's giving dad a big ol' "go f___ yourself while I f___ your exwife". it, isn't relevant, nor does this set precedent in US law I'm guessing it is a matter of weeks or months before this issue comes up here in the US. If politicians or the MSM cite this story as evidence for why the US legal system should be void of morals and do whatever feels good, then I will ask you to eat your words. I'd rather my assumption be wrong, but that's just not the way the world seems to work. Constant moral decay; now as I've said in another thread I'm not smart on science, but it seems like there's an observable precedence for all things tending toward chaos over time. And, everything is a stepping stone. Keep adding gun restrictions until no one can have them anywhere; that's the admitted goal. Shut down independent media outlets until there's only government sanctioned media. Replace traditional morality with state mandated morality. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. | ||
| Torquehd |
I would be happy to move out ASAP before I became their next source of entertainment. Well, you can either just run and hope you don't run out of safe spaces, or you can approach it with the perspective that this is your country, your republic, and therefore you have some moral obligation to help sculpt the climate in which you live. GOOD THEN CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T TRY That's why I voice my opinion, that's why I voted for Trump. I can't say that I didn't try to keep this republic from turning into a Godless, communist state. (Message edited by torquehd on December 10, 2016) | ||
| Arbalest |
Blake, "Forcing people to violate their sincere faith and conscience is just so awfully wrong." There was a time, in the not so distant past, when sincere Christians believed, based on Bible text, that black people were inferior to white people. If people were required to allow that view to persist, black people would still be riding at the back of the bus. Do you really think those views should have been respected? | ||
| H0gwash |
"...I would be happy to move out ASAP..." In the case of torturing children as pay per view, I'm happy to get the hell out because things are clearly beyond repair. If this happened in Sacramento and the rest of the world was worse off, I would be forced to make a stand in some possibly covert way since whatever I was doing above the board was clearly not working. It is clear many moderates saw Trump as a the practical political if not 100% ethical solution. The swing of the political pendulum happened earlier than I expected but even at best a Hillary win would have been very narrow. What instead happened was Trump had the narrow victory, so this is just a first world problem, it is very survive-able. |
