Try looking at it this way: when you see something you want you must pay for it.
So you favor prostitution over the same sex couples?
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Much in the same way that property rights deny a thief what he must pay for. With any rule set there is denial (which is basically the point of the rules.)
So if we taxed same sex couples then it is more moral?
The above questions is my way of saying you are making zero sence. Your analogies to capitalism doesn´t float.
I didn't think you wanted this thread to last Der Kopf ?
I have a hard time reading what ena has to say about homosexuality and staying calm and composed. I believe that some of his opinions on the matter are criminal, and that should not be viewed as an ad hominem attack, but rather as, well, as something else. That said, it doesn't surprise me to be confronted with a thread that is once again hijacked by ena, trying to dodge MANY bullets. Anybody remember what this thread is about?
So you favor prostitution over the same sex couples?
Anders, you are a funny guy.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm trying to make a legitimate point about boundaries and how that influences our value judgments---and also our willingness to "take care of" and the amount of care that goes into making those decisions.
When the communists took away the boundaries on private property, it eventually lost all its value. Once you make sex free, it, too eventually loses all its value---same with marriage, anything.
I was working with a Ukrainian engineer back in the "cold war" who had ordered some seals (no BR not those kind) which were not the correct size. Someone pointed out to him that he needed to hurry up and get them returned and order new seals. He was amazed--- in the USSR he would have just thrown them in the trash. He couldn't get over it. "Wow"---he said, "just like Kroger."
I'm sure you know what you're doing---but do you realize what this means? sorta thing.
Hells bells giant, what about Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Chinese Cultures? Yes, they didn't burn out after several hundred years.---they all have a narrowly defined culture at their center.
Burn out? Maybe you didn't go to college and realize that your culture is what they turned into, Askolodotna.
And the first three of yours are religions.
and you used the word straw man wrong. way to mutilate a new phrase you just picked up.
When the communists took away the boundaries on private property, it eventually lost all its value. Once you make sex free, it, too eventually loses all its value---same with marriage, anything.
And I ask again: Who is talking about free sex? We were talking about homosexuality.
And what about your original claim, that homosexuality means lower fertility, which is bogus?
Burn out? Maybe you didn't go to college and realize that your culture is what they turned into, Askolodotna.
And the first three of yours are religions.
and you used the word straw man wrong. way to mutilate a new phrase you just picked up.
...strawman may strike a little too close to home? You sound upset again giant, are you sure you shouldn't calm down?
I have visions of Yosemite Sam in Bucaroo Bunny gritting his teeth so badly they crumble.
Rome and Greece fell apart, in the end they didn't have what it took to hold together, or were absorbed by the dominant cultures around them. Whatever---you can't deny the west's population is faltering. Read the post to Anders---it's a valid point. I don't care if you agree with it or not. Take down barriers, you get the "tragedy of the commons" problem.
strawman may strike a little too close to home? You sound upset again giant, are you sure you shouldn't calm down?
nope, that's just your schizophrenia making you imagine things
Quote:
I have visions of Yosemite Sam in Bucaroo Bunny gritting his teeth so badly they crumble.
see? go take your meds
Quote:
Rome and Greece fell apart, in the end they didn't have what it took to hold together, or were absorbed by the dominant cultures around them. Whatever---you can't deny the west's population is faltering. Read the post to Anders---it's a valid point. I don't care if you agree with it or not. Take down barriers, you get the "tragedy of the commons" problem.
Sorry, but a religion is not a civilization, and a civilization is not a religion, Askolodotna. Your whole foundation is wrong.
And I ask again: Who is talking about free sex? We were talking about homosexuality.
And what about your original claim, that homosexuality means lower fertility, which is bogus?
just that free sex is the removal of all barriers gay/straight whatever. I guess the barriers to homosexual sex are a little different that the barriers to heterosexual sex (marriage) but I think you get the point. I'm speaking generally here. I think it's is numerically possible for the Homos to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, but it would require each lesbian couple to have a family of 4.2 kids---unless we are going back to Ayn Rand's houses of mating thing and we redistribute the kids. One flaw there would be the assumption that children don't need a mother and father. Hell there's a whole thread right there.
My boss is pissed--I'm wasting too much time. more at lunch. (unless der shiesKopf propositions me again).
That's a theory proposed by a theologan and is used to sum up his Calvanistic Concept of Culture, if I remember the name correctly. It is often used by Christians that don't have any academic background to promote the idea that american culture is degraded because people don't take christianity seriously enough.
Sorry, but citing such low-level propaganda only demonstrates that you haven't been exposed to much beyond your own group's ideologies.
just that free sex is the removal of all barriers gay/straight whatever. I guess the barriers to homosexual sex are a little different that the barriers to heterosexual sex (marriage) but I think you get the point.
No I don´t. Homosexual couples can be married (or at least get marriage-like status) in the countries we talk about. What are you trying to say?
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
I'm speaking generally here. I think it's is numerically possible for the Homos to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, but it would require each lesbian couple to have a family of 4.2 kids
No it would not. Male couples can adobt children. Something that happens today actually. And a very wild thought: A lesbian couple can (to fill the quota set by you) have two children each and have a male couple help raise them. They could actually also be their fathers. Again something that happens today.
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
---unless we are going back to Ayn Rand's houses of mating thing and we redistribute the kids.
Don´t know who he is.
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
One flaw there would be the assumption that children don't need a mother and father. Hell there's a whole thread right there.
If that is your argument then I don´t get all the warped talk about capitalism and numerical death of civilisations?
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
My boss is pissed--I'm wasting too much time. more at lunch. (unless der shiesKopf propositions me again).
Well, if you say you're not Aksolodotna then who am I to argue. I'll just have to take you at your word.
Actually, for all your similarities - your experiences with hallucinogens, the nature of your religious convictions, your shared fondness for fishing, your lives in Alaska, your shared propensity to *depart thread with x, y or z attached to n*, your posting styles, your moral philosophy and your itchy smilie-finger - you are, now I think about it, quite different, the two of you. I can't put my finger on it, but no, you're not Aksolodotna.
Which is fortunate for us, I reckon! What an arrogant dickspanner he or she was.
Yes, what a bigoted, condescending, morally suspect hypocrite, casuist and general-purpose dangleberry that poster was. Barely a tenth as bright as he (for the sake of convenience) thought he was, that poor damaged feckwit had somehow managed to ignore all the tremendously positive things that characterise modern Christianity - all the tolerance, humility, empathy with the downtrodden, disenfranchised, poor and generally underdoggy - for this toxic right-wing intolerant shite that I found really nauseating. Never posted his sources, often resorted to gnomic one-line maxims from controversial theologists when he got the thorough-going pasting he deserved... Heavens to Betsy I'm glad you're not Aksolodtna.
Well, if you say you're not Aksolodotna then who am I to argue. I'll just have to take you at your word.
Actually, for all your similarities - your experiences with hallucinogens, the nature of your religious convictions, your shared fondness for fishing, your lives in Alaska, your shared propensity to *depart thread with x, y or z attached to n*, your posting styles, your moral philosophy and your itchy smilie-finger - you are, now I think about it, quite different, the two of you. I can't put my finger on it, but no, you're not Aksolodotna.
Which is fortunate for us, I reckon! What an arrogant dickspanner he or she was.
Yes, what a bigoted, condescending, morally suspect hypocrite, casuist and general-purpose dangleberry that poster was. Barely a tenth as bright as he (for the sake of convenience) thought he was, that poor damaged feckwit had somehow managed to ignore all the tremendously positive things that characterise modern Christianity - all the tolerance, humility, empathy with the downtrodden, disenfranchised, poor and generally underdoggy - for this toxic right-wing intolerant shite that I found really nauseating. Never posted his sources, often resorted to gnomic one-line maxims from controversial theologists when he got the thorough-going pasting he deserved... Heavens to Betsy I'm glad you're not Aksolodtna.
But you're not him, ena, so that's OK. Phew.
I'm glad you are over the experience. It sounds like (s)he has given half the posters here a complex.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
Try looking at it this way: when you see something you want you must pay for it.
So you favor prostitution over the same sex couples?
Originally posted by ena
Much in the same way that property rights deny a thief what he must pay for. With any rule set there is denial (which is basically the point of the rules.)
So if we taxed same sex couples then it is more moral?
The above questions is my way of saying you are making zero sence. Your analogies to capitalism doesn´t float.
Originally posted by aquafire
I didn't think you wanted this thread to last Der Kopf ?
I have a hard time reading what ena has to say about homosexuality and staying calm and composed. I believe that some of his opinions on the matter are criminal, and that should not be viewed as an ad hominem attack, but rather as, well, as something else. That said, it doesn't surprise me to be confronted with a thread that is once again hijacked by ena, trying to dodge MANY bullets. Anybody remember what this thread is about?
Originally posted by der Kopf
Anybody remember what this thread is about?
Not until you mentioned it.
That makes me think. The question is no longer: Is Scott jewish but is Ena muslim?
Originally posted by Anders
Not until you mentioned it.
That makes me think. The question is no longer: Is Scott jewish but is Ena muslim?
Yeah, that's got a lot to do with this post.
First off she is a she.
Second she is Jewish.
Third...she...leaves thread....
Originally posted by Anders
So you favor prostitution over the same sex couples?
Anders, you are a funny guy.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm trying to make a legitimate point about boundaries and how that influences our value judgments---and also our willingness to "take care of" and the amount of care that goes into making those decisions.
When the communists took away the boundaries on private property, it eventually lost all its value. Once you make sex free, it, too eventually loses all its value---same with marriage, anything.
I was working with a Ukrainian engineer back in the "cold war" who had ordered some seals (no BR not those kind) which were not the correct size. Someone pointed out to him that he needed to hurry up and get them returned and order new seals. He was amazed--- in the USSR he would have just thrown them in the trash. He couldn't get over it. "Wow"---he said, "just like Kroger."
I'm sure you know what you're doing---but do you realize what this means? sorta thing.
Originally posted by ena
Hells bells giant, what about Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Chinese Cultures? Yes, they didn't burn out after several hundred years.---they all have a narrowly defined culture at their center.
Burn out? Maybe you didn't go to college and realize that your culture is what they turned into, Askolodotna.
And the first three of yours are religions.
and you used the word straw man wrong. way to mutilate a new phrase you just picked up.
Originally posted by ena
When the communists took away the boundaries on private property, it eventually lost all its value. Once you make sex free, it, too eventually loses all its value---same with marriage, anything.
And I ask again: Who is talking about free sex? We were talking about homosexuality.
And what about your original claim, that homosexuality means lower fertility, which is bogus?
Originally posted by giant
Burn out? Maybe you didn't go to college and realize that your culture is what they turned into, Askolodotna.
And the first three of yours are religions.
and you used the word straw man wrong. way to mutilate a new phrase you just picked up.
...strawman may strike a little too close to home? You sound upset again giant, are you sure you shouldn't calm down?
I have visions of Yosemite Sam in Bucaroo Bunny gritting his teeth so badly they crumble.
Rome and Greece fell apart, in the end they didn't have what it took to hold together, or were absorbed by the dominant cultures around them. Whatever---you can't deny the west's population is faltering. Read the post to Anders---it's a valid point. I don't care if you agree with it or not. Take down barriers, you get the "tragedy of the commons" problem.
Originally posted by ena
strawman may strike a little too close to home? You sound upset again giant, are you sure you shouldn't calm down?
nope, that's just your schizophrenia making you imagine things
I have visions of Yosemite Sam in Bucaroo Bunny gritting his teeth so badly they crumble.
see? go take your meds
Rome and Greece fell apart, in the end they didn't have what it took to hold together, or were absorbed by the dominant cultures around them. Whatever---you can't deny the west's population is faltering. Read the post to Anders---it's a valid point. I don't care if you agree with it or not. Take down barriers, you get the "tragedy of the commons" problem.
Sorry, but a religion is not a civilization, and a civilization is not a religion, Askolodotna. Your whole foundation is wrong.
Originally posted by Anders
And I ask again: Who is talking about free sex? We were talking about homosexuality.
And what about your original claim, that homosexuality means lower fertility, which is bogus?
just that free sex is the removal of all barriers gay/straight whatever. I guess the barriers to homosexual sex are a little different that the barriers to heterosexual sex (marriage) but I think you get the point. I'm speaking generally here. I think it's is numerically possible for the Homos to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, but it would require each lesbian couple to have a family of 4.2 kids---unless we are going back to Ayn Rand's houses of mating thing and we redistribute the kids. One flaw there would be the assumption that children don't need a mother and father. Hell there's a whole thread right there.
My boss is pissed--I'm wasting too much time. more at lunch. (unless der shiesKopf propositions me again).
Originally posted by giant
nope, that's just your schizophrenia making you imagine things
see? go take your meds
Sorry, but a religion is not a civilization, and a civilization is not a religion, Askolodotna.
No more time this morning.
"culture is religion externalized."
Originally posted by ena
"culture is religion externalized."
That's a theory proposed by a theologan and is used to sum up his Calvanistic Concept of Culture, if I remember the name correctly. It is often used by Christians that don't have any academic background to promote the idea that american culture is degraded because people don't take christianity seriously enough.
Sorry, but citing such low-level propaganda only demonstrates that you haven't been exposed to much beyond your own group's ideologies.
Originally posted by ena
just that free sex is the removal of all barriers gay/straight whatever. I guess the barriers to homosexual sex are a little different that the barriers to heterosexual sex (marriage) but I think you get the point.
No I don´t. Homosexual couples can be married (or at least get marriage-like status) in the countries we talk about. What are you trying to say?
Originally posted by ena
I'm speaking generally here. I think it's is numerically possible for the Homos to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, but it would require each lesbian couple to have a family of 4.2 kids
No it would not. Male couples can adobt children. Something that happens today actually. And a very wild thought: A lesbian couple can (to fill the quota set by you) have two children each and have a male couple help raise them. They could actually also be their fathers. Again something that happens today.
Originally posted by ena
---unless we are going back to Ayn Rand's houses of mating thing and we redistribute the kids.
Don´t know who he is.
Originally posted by ena
One flaw there would be the assumption that children don't need a mother and father. Hell there's a whole thread right there.
If that is your argument then I don´t get all the warped talk about capitalism and numerical death of civilisations?
Originally posted by ena
My boss is pissed--I'm wasting too much time. more at lunch. (unless der shiesKopf propositions me again).
Nothing new.
Well, if you say you're not Aksolodotna then who am I to argue. I'll just have to take you at your word.
Actually, for all your similarities - your experiences with hallucinogens, the nature of your religious convictions, your shared fondness for fishing, your lives in Alaska, your shared propensity to *depart thread with x, y or z attached to n*, your posting styles, your moral philosophy and your itchy smilie-finger
Which is fortunate for us, I reckon! What an arrogant dickspanner he or she was.
Yes, what a bigoted, condescending, morally suspect hypocrite, casuist and general-purpose dangleberry that poster was. Barely a tenth as bright as he (for the sake of convenience) thought he was, that poor damaged feckwit had somehow managed to ignore all the tremendously positive things that characterise modern Christianity - all the tolerance, humility, empathy with the downtrodden, disenfranchised, poor and generally underdoggy - for this toxic right-wing intolerant shite that I found really nauseating. Never posted his sources, often resorted to gnomic one-line maxims from controversial theologists when he got the thorough-going pasting he deserved... Heavens to Betsy I'm glad you're not Aksolodtna.
But you're not him, ena, so that's OK. Phew.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
ena:
Well, if you say you're not Aksolodotna then who am I to argue. I'll just have to take you at your word.
Actually, for all your similarities - your experiences with hallucinogens, the nature of your religious convictions, your shared fondness for fishing, your lives in Alaska, your shared propensity to *depart thread with x, y or z attached to n*, your posting styles, your moral philosophy and your itchy smilie-finger
Which is fortunate for us, I reckon! What an arrogant dickspanner he or she was.
Yes, what a bigoted, condescending, morally suspect hypocrite, casuist and general-purpose dangleberry that poster was. Barely a tenth as bright as he (for the sake of convenience) thought he was, that poor damaged feckwit had somehow managed to ignore all the tremendously positive things that characterise modern Christianity - all the tolerance, humility, empathy with the downtrodden, disenfranchised, poor and generally underdoggy - for this toxic right-wing intolerant shite that I found really nauseating. Never posted his sources, often resorted to gnomic one-line maxims from controversial theologists when he got the thorough-going pasting he deserved... Heavens to Betsy I'm glad you're not Aksolodtna.
But you're not him, ena, so that's OK. Phew.
I'm glad you are over the experience. It sounds like (s)he has given half the posters here a complex.
Does anyone else here remember Aksolodtna? Maybe you'd like to, you know, share your opinion of that lamented ex-poster from Alaska.
Oh, take it out, it's too big!!
I remember when Askolodotna tried to delete everything in his posts and act like they never existed
Originally posted by Anders
Anyone have a match...?
Exactly, all you are missing are the torches and hayforks.