Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Define Liberal

Home // Liberal Corner



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Spider Jerusalem, I've been reading a lot of your posts tonight, and I'm sort of curious, what DO you consider yourself politically?


That's funny. I did the same last night.

Stay tuned..... There's more to come on spider.
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Spider Jerusalem, I've been reading a lot of your posts tonight, and I'm sort of curious, what DO you consider yourself politically?

I told you, anarcho-conservative. It's hard to be a republican and not be totalrian. You will find that the more capitalist you are, the more you naturaly drift towards socialy liberal. Why? Because capitalism depends on social liberties to exploit and profit from. Every sin immaginable could be packaged and distrubuted by capitalism. Neo-liberals piss me off because they defy my few princaples, and think they can have complete chaos and depravity among socialism. How the fuck is that going to work?

How are you going to purchase drugs without money? Do you think someone is just going to make them for you?

How are you going to buy the food you want? Someone is just out of the kindness of thier heart going to trade rare turnips for common oranges? That's not realistic.

Thus in socialism (and to a greater extent communism) you're stuck with what you get. No variety, no choices, no liberty. So i'm infact being more socialy leaniant then the average liberal. I just happen to have some moral fiber in my being and can't stand ceartain actions. But infact, goverment intervention isn't my only idea of getting rid of it, but if no goverment exsisted vigilantes could do it for me. Jack The Ripper was a good example of anarcho-policemen. Goverment should either exsist to protect morality or not exsist at all. And besides sexual deviance and abortion, I really don't see anything as moraly reprehensible. Atleast not enough to get involved or expect the goverment to get involved.

Realistic anarchists are minarchists. Because people are too dumb and apeshit to work under anarchy. Less ofcourse everyone was competant and wonderful like your's truly. Razz
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Spider Jerusalem, I've been reading a lot of your posts tonight, and I'm sort of curious, what DO you consider yourself politically?

I told you, anarcho-conservative. It's hard to be a republican and not be totalrian. You will find that the more capitalist you are, the more you naturaly drift towards socialy liberal. Why? Because capitalism depends on social liberties to exploit and profit from. Every sin immaginable could be packaged and distrubuted by capitalism. Neo-liberals piss me off because they defy my few princaples, and think they can have complete chaos and depravity among socialism. How the fuck is that going to work?

How are you going to purchase drugs without money? Do you think someone is just going to make them for you?

How are you going to buy the food you want? Someone is just out of the kindness of thier heart going to trade rare turnips for common oranges? That's not realistic.

Thus in socialism (and to a greater extent communism) you're stuck with what you get. No variety, no choices, no liberty. So i'm infact being more socialy leaniant then the average liberal. I just happen to have some moral fiber in my being and can't stand ceartain actions. But infact, goverment intervention isn't my only idea of getting rid of it, but if no goverment exsisted vigilantes could do it for me. Jack The Ripper was a good example of anarcho-policemen. Goverment should either exsist to protect morality or not exsist at all. And besides sexual deviance and abortion, I really don't see anything as moraly reprehensible. Atleast not enough to get involved or expect the goverment to get involved.

Realistic anarchists are minarchists. Because people are too dumb and apeshit to work under anarchy. Less ofcourse everyone was competant and wonderful like your's truly. Razz


Alright, I can understand that viewpoint. I asked somewhere else, but you got distracted by all the flaming I was dropping around it (sorry about that, I was kinda crabby last night) and never answered... can you give me your definition of "sexual deviance?" It seems clearly to include promiscuous acts, but does that mean anything goes in a stable, monogamous relationship between consenting adults? Or are there some lines that inherently shouldn't be crosses, even privately?
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm.. *scratches chin* I never really thought about it. I tend to stick to a few problems at a time.

I suppose if it was between two and only two consenting adults anything would go. I mean really, what counts as sexual deviance beyond that point? I wouldn't want people having sex with multiple people during the course of thier life if that's what you mean. But I'm not made of stone, I'd say maybe.. five people maximum? Beyond that castration!

And as far as those gray areas like beastiality. For the sake of my personal integrity, I won't comment and just say I'd permit it. Razz

Necrophylia, eh, it would still count against the five-max rule, and you'd be expected to have the dead person's consent in written document.

Same with child sex laws. They'd still have to follow the five-max rule, but I don't see why minors can't have sex. We'd need to issue some kindof contract system to keep track of how many sexual partners you had. Otherwise it's difficult to enforce this rule as we do not know the value of X.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alright, that's a much less authoritarian stance than I originally assumed you were making, my mistake. Seems like every time you hear "sexual deviance" or "sexual morality" nowadays people are trying to assert their own sensibilities on the actions of others, especially in areas like homosexual and extramarital relationships. And I see where your "five or less" thing is coming from, but even if we could agree that it was incredibly, horribly wrong to go over that number in a lifetime, it seems pretty hard to keep track of. Not something a good small government could easily do...
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe, but I would hope everyone else did thier part to put things right so we wouldn't need a bigger goverment.

Say for example some kid stuck a firecracker up one of the neighbor's dog's butt. That's horrible, no-one's going to argue about that.

But should we have to expect policemen to comeover, drag him to jail, wait for a court settlement, put him in juvinale hall.

Moneymoneymoney, that's all I see being wasted.

When all that had to be done was someone, anyone, go up to that kid, push him down, and yell "you like sticking firecrackers up butts huh?!" and sticking a couple up his ass and blowing off his rectum. Then when mommy and daddy have to pay for his hospital bill and he has to sit on a pillow for the next three years. You can rest assure, he won't do it again.

Could the goverment ever ensue justice like that? Hell no. They'd probably defend the boy. Because goverment is inheritly incompetant. I don't think goverment is evil, hense I don't want to abolish it completely. But it's more often a burden then a blessing, hense it should be lessend and have it's responsibilities kept to a minimum.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
Maybe, but I would hope everyone else did thier part to put things right so we wouldn't need a bigger goverment.

Say for example some kid stuck a firecracker up one of the neighbor's dog's butt. That's horrible, no-one's going to argue about that.

But should we have to expect policemen to comeover, drag him to jail, wait for a court settlement, put him in juvinale hall.

Moneymoneymoney, that's all I see being wasted.

When all that had to be done was someone, anyone, go up to that kid, push him down, and yell "you like sticking firecrackers up butts huh?!" and sticking a couple up his ass and blowing off his rectum. Then when mommy and daddy have to pay for his hospital bill and he has to sit on a pillow for the next three years. You can rest assure, he won't do it again.

Could the goverment ever ensue justice like that? Hell no. They'd probably defend the boy. Because goverment is inheritly incompetant. I don't think goverment is evil, hense I don't want to abolish it completely. But it's more often a burden then a blessing, hense it should be lessend and have it's responsibilities kept to a minimum.
So if anyone feels offended or wronged by something that someone else does, they should be encouraged to grab a weapon and go take care of it? All I see is an escalating cycle of violence. The kid's parents say "all junior did was attack an animal, you attacked him, you bastard" and go put one of the vigilantes in the hospital. Next thing you know, that family's house gets burned down and their friends and relatives are going after the people who did it. When everyone's armed and encouraged to enact their own brand of justice, you don't necessarily get justice, but you always get revenge. And what about the girl who says she was raped by that guy down the street nobody likes? Her father and brother won't stop to check on her story no matter how preposterous it is, they'll go kill the supposed rapist because they trust her and are in a blind rage. Chances are, nobody ever looks into it, especially if the guy didn't have many friends. And maybe he did rape her... or maybe she cheated on her boyfriend with him and now she's pissed. Or maybe she doesn't like the way he looks at her, so she whips out a gun, shoots him herself, and tells everyone he tried to do it. Without an impartiat justification process, we get more and more violence for less and less reason much more often than we really get justice.
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As realistic as your scenario is I can't help but prefer that over what we have now. There are only two universal languages in this world.

Money and violance.

What one can't solve, the other surely can.
Back to top
Amin
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
if the peoples were more knowledgeable there would not be such a large need for "big brother"

our educational system is broken and the media speaks for itself

things have been and are being made so we are dependant

the family is a symbol of independence and it is being destroyed

independence is a threat to these power hungry minority
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
As realistic as your scenario is I can't help but prefer that over what we have now.


Why? The scenario he describes involves you (and the rest of us) being dead or destitute.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amin wrote:
if the peoples were more knowledgeable there would not be such a large need for "big brother"


Knowledgeable...about what?

Quote:

our educational system is broken and the media speaks for itself


You can't say that the education system in the united states as a whole is broken, because there is no united states education system; the education system is entirely local and state coordinated. Every one of them is different.

Quote:

things have been and are being made so we are dependant


Dependent on who? For what?

Quote:

the family is a symbol of independence and it is being destroyed


How so?

Quote:

independence is a threat to these power hungry minority


Which one?
Back to top
Spider Jerusalem
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Why? The scenario he describes involves you (and the rest of us) being dead or destitute.

Only the weak, stupid, and those that allow it to happen. If anyone tried to accuse me of rape I'd shoot them in the face, and thier panzyass family members who tried to mug me.

Self-sufficietcy. Something no amount of tax dollars can cover.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Spider Jerusalem wrote:
I define liberal as someone who is being moraly bankrupt and a jerk.
And I define conservative as someone who's being a prude and arrogant.


Wow, you've actually absorbed propaganda from both of them.

Lemme guess: you're a libertarian?

Worse!! He's your average american..
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oolon Colluphid wrote:
"The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at ant moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology." ~Bertrand Russell

Isn't that a beautiful thing?

He said that to confuse people into thinking he was right... it worked..
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really could end this with... why so many political views that contradict. Anarcho-conservative? What the hell? From my political knowledge how can conservatism and anarchism be linked, strickly on the bases of classless society to class society.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites