Pelosi promises to be a bipartisan House speaker

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
For the 10 millionth time, Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Well, if they want to get elected they are not.

But then commies run for office too, in the end both views want to kill the state off at some point in their "enlightenment".

Don't make me cut and paste to disprove your denial of Libertarianism being a anarcho idea.

Geez, talk about dishonest.

American Libertarianism is a classical liberal philosophy, a type of minarchism, i.e. "the government is best that governs least," based upon the classical liberal philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, the rest of the Founding Fathers, etc.

Anarchy, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-capitalism are all separate philosophies, occasionally confused by some as being Libertarian, but actually having nothing to do with mainstream Libertarianism or the Libertarian party. It's not about getting elected. The ideologies of anarchy are completely incompatible with the basic Libertarian philosophy of a state that exists with the consent of the governed solely to protect the rights of the individual people.

Don't talk to me about dishonesty when you don't even know what the fsck you're talking about.

Ahh, so your basiclly a socialist not a communist, either way, socialists are winning in office still then. "Libertarianism" just helping reps lose heh.


Anyhow, yep, Pelosi will bring a more left-center pull, and more power to her.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
as being opposed to the 2nd amendment again?

You want to bait me into gun-control issue so bad, then all the statist authoritarian dittoheads on the right will flame me to no end with their small pen0r complex about firearms protections, no thanks.

:laugh:

You were the one who said the Constitution would protect our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech while at the same time defending aidanjm's anti-2nd amendment position.

Must we go through another one of those ordeals where you make yourself and your argument look ridiculous for page after page again, and you're always to stupid to realize it?

sadly, gun control is a lost cause in the USA.

but privately, I am sure most liberals will continue believing that fewer guns on the streets and in homes would create a safer society.

Excuse me, no that is not true.

Most Americans see what happens with a disarmed society and it's not pretty.

Only the thugs are armed and they get to rule.

Every citizen capable of properly cleaning and firing a gun should have one.

 

[Tab]

Anyone else think Vic should run for office?

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone else think Vic should run for office?

I wouldn't mind him running. The government and the world as a whole needs more people like him that understand the basic principles of liberalism.

I've become rather sick of all the left and right-wing authoritarian types running around trying to protect me from myself and forcing things on me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
For the 10 millionth time, Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Well, if they want to get elected they are not.

But then commies run for office too, in the end both views want to kill the state off at some point in their "enlightenment".

Don't make me cut and paste to disprove your denial of Libertarianism being a anarcho idea.

Geez, talk about dishonest.

American Libertarianism is a classical liberal philosophy, a type of minarchism, i.e. "the government is best that governs least," based upon the classical liberal philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, the rest of the Founding Fathers, etc.

Anarchy, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-capitalism are all separate philosophies, occasionally confused by some as being Libertarian, but actually having nothing to do with mainstream Libertarianism or the Libertarian party. It's not about getting elected. The ideologies of anarchy are completely incompatible with the basic Libertarian philosophy of a state that exists with the consent of the governed solely to protect the rights of the individual people.

Don't talk to me about dishonesty when you don't even know what the fsck you're talking about.

Ahh, so your basiclly a socialist not a communist, either way, socialists are winning in office still then. "Libertarianism" just helping reps lose heh.


Anyhow, yep, Pelosi will bring a more left-center pull, and more power to her.

I don't differentiate between socialists and communists, and am opposed to both. The former has its origins in Puritanism, the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

Bingo, quoted for irony.

Libertarianism = economic-babble pseudo religion.

You are no moderate, Vic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

Bingo, quoted for irony.

Libertarianism = economic-babble pseudo religion.

You are no moderate, Vic.

Yeah, the "religion" that has lasted as the world's best and most stable form of government for 230 years, and created the strongest economic powerhouse the world has ever known....

Put the crack pipe down, rot.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

Bingo, quoted for irony.

Libertarianism = economic-babble pseudo religion.

You are no moderate, Vic.

Yeah, the "religion" that has lasted as the world's best and most stable form of government for 230 years, and created the strongest economic powerhouse the world has ever known....

Put the crack pipe down, rot.

You are the one smoking if you think this country is founded by libertarianism and some type of libertarianism value has kept this going. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

Bingo, quoted for irony.

Libertarianism = economic-babble pseudo religion.

You are no moderate, Vic.

Yeah, the "religion" that has lasted as the world's best and most stable form of government for 230 years, and created the strongest economic powerhouse the world has ever known....

Put the crack pipe down, rot.

You are the one smoking if you think this country is founded by libertarianism and some type of libertarianism value has kept this going. :roll:

Text

Historian of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans that liberalism was "redefined" in the United States over time from the laissez-faire policy embodied by Thomas Paine's famous formulation "that government is best which governs least" to "the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." The term "classical liberalism" refers to the political philosophy prior to this redefinition.

edit: BTW, it is you (and others who don't know of or understand classical liberalism) who calls me a libertarian, and I go along with it for convenience's sake. I call myself a classical liberal.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
-- the right to withdraw oneself from society.

That is not being a realist, it is running or isolating yourself, which is why I say libertarianism it is nothing less then a utopian economic cult people grow out of sooner or later.

it's a utopian fantasy or cult, which appeals to people with an overly strong internal locus of control. I.e., people who have a strong need to believe that they are in control of their destiny. Such people are unreasonably terrified at the notion of government "intrusion" in their lives. Hence any government that might act to limit availability of deadly weapons of mass slaughter must be evil, in the warped mind of the libertarian.

How is that any different than people who are terrified at the notion of government intrusion into the conversations and correspondence of it citizens? Does that indicate a warped mind?

I'd say it indicates a quite reasonable concern for individual citizens' privacy. There's not really much of a convincing justification for the state to be snooping at random on citizens' correspondence.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Obviously if you have nothing to hide, privacy laws are merely interfering in the government pursuit of safety for it's people.

I would have thought most people would have an expectation that they can conduct their lawful private lives without being snooped upon by the State. There would have to be a damn good reason for mass snooping on citizens by the state. I can't imagine what such a reason would be.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You're a classic leftist authoritarian. You have no problem limiting the freedoms of others when they're the freedoms that don't interest you,

Actually my position isn't remotely authoritarian. In general, my aim would be to ensure that all citizens have the maximum amount of freedom possible to conduct their lives as they see fit. However your "freedom" to own a gun is relevant to me and other citizens, because chances are someone is going to be killed or hurt by the gun you own. You only have to look at the statistics for homicides or accidental deaths via guns to realize how insane the situation is in the USA.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
yet you piss and moan when someone else attacks the freedoms that you do value.

I find libertarians such as yourself and Vic to be distasteful, because you will tpyically support Republicans/ conservative candidates because you want various "freedoms" in the economic sphere - conveniently ignoring that Republicans/ conservatives are only able to obtain power on a campaign ticket of singling out gays and lesbians and restricting their liberties and freedoms. I've yet to hear a so-called libertarian passionately defend gay rights (which you would do, if you actually believed in the principles you espouse).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: BTW, it is you (and others who don't know of or understand classical liberalism) who calls me a libertarian, and I go along with it for convenience's sake. I call myself a classical liberal.

you have no right to refer to yourself as a classical liberal when you are willing to 'sell out' the rights and freedoms of entire groups of people through your support of the Republican party. Let's face it, people like you are more than happy to have the rights of others infringed upon, if it means seeing your economic agenda imposed on an unwilling populace.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
the latter in a psycho-babble pseudo-religion.

Bingo, quoted for irony.

Libertarianism = economic-babble pseudo religion.

You are no moderate, Vic.

Yeah, the "religion" that has lasted as the world's best and most stable form of government for 230 years, and created the strongest economic powerhouse the world has ever known....

Put the crack pipe down, rot.

You are the one smoking if you think this country is founded by libertarianism and some type of libertarianism value has kept this going. :roll:

Text

Historian of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans that liberalism was "redefined" in the United States over time from the laissez-faire policy embodied by Thomas Paine's famous formulation "that government is best which governs least" to "the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." The term "classical liberalism" refers to the political philosophy prior to this redefinition.

edit: BTW, it is you (and others who don't know of or understand classical liberalism) who calls me a libertarian, and I go along with it for convenience's sake.

I call myself a classical liberal.

If you're a liberal I must be The Pope.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: BoberFett
How is that any different than people who are terrified at the notion of government intrusion into the conversations and correspondence of it citizens? Does that indicate a warped mind?

I'd say it indicates a quite reasonable concern for individual citizens' privacy. There's not really much of a convincing justification for the state to be snooping at random on citizens' correspondence.

With unfettered access to all communication, crime would plummet. Taps on every phone, every letter scanned, emails logged. Any time some stalker on the internet went after little kids in a chatroom, the government would be right on top of him. The fact that you can't imagine how complete access to all communication would help law enforcement means you lack imagination.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Obviously if you have nothing to hide, privacy laws are merely interfering in the government pursuit of safety for it's people.

I would have thought most people would have an expectation that they can conduct their lawful private lives without being snooped upon by the State. There would have to be a damn good reason for mass snooping on citizens by the state. I can't imagine what such a reason would be.

Yet you want to snoop in my cabinet to see if I have a gun. Ironic.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You're a classic leftist authoritarian. You have no problem limiting the freedoms of others when they're the freedoms that don't interest you,

Actually my position isn't remotely authoritarian. In general, my aim would be to ensure that all citizens have the maximum amount of freedom possible to conduct their lives as they see fit. However your "freedom" to own a gun is relevant to me and other citizens, because chances are someone is going to be killed or hurt by the gun you own. You only have to look at the statistics for homicides or accidental deaths via guns to realize how insane the situation is in the USA.

I own a gun. Several in fact. None of them have ever killed anybody. Neither have 99.9% of the guns owned in the US. That sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
yet you piss and moan when someone else attacks the freedoms that you do value.

I find libertarians such as yourself and Vic to be distasteful, because you will tpyically support Republicans/ conservative candidates because you want various "freedoms" in the economic sphere - conveniently ignoring that Republicans/ conservatives are only able to obtain power on a campaign ticket of singling out gays and lesbians and restricting their liberties and freedoms. I've yet to hear a so-called libertarian passionately defend gay rights (which you would do, if you actually believed in the principles you espouse).

You've just shown how much of a fool you are. Libertarians fully support gay rights. The government has no business defining marriage. They do have a requirement to protect civil liberties which apply to all people. If you seriously think libertarians don't support gay rights, stop posting right now. You're a goddam fool.

Edit: Here you go, dumbass. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexgend

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You've just shown how much of a fool you are. Libertarians fully support gay rights.

In theory. In practice, the people calling themselves libertarians (on forums such as this) rarely defend gay rights. And are quite happy in fact to sacrifice gay rights as a way of getting a conservative candidate into office (e.g., campaigning on banning gay marriage).

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The government has no business defining marriage. They do have a requirement to protect civil liberties which apply to all people. If you seriously think libertarians don't support gay rights, stop posting right now. You're a goddam fool.

The people who call themselves libertarians (on forums like this) don't passionately defend gay rights. Actually, the people who call themselves libertarians around here most often have socially quite conservative views. In general, they are much more worried about the government taking their income via taxes (a topic they are prone to whine about endlessly), than they are about the government e.g., arbitrarily depriving same-sex couples of the protections and responsibilities associated with marriage. They will go along with the anti-gay agenda of someone like Dumbya - never speaking out - if it means lower taxes or greater "freedoms" or less government interference within their personal economic sphere.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
edit: Here you go, dumbass. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexgend

what a nasty, unpleasant individual you are.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not trying to be pleasant, so piss off. You're wrong, I've proven it, and you have nothing to stand on now.

Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the classic definition of liberal. It's too bad the term has been hijacked by leftist authoritarians. The only reason you think libertarians are conservative is because you're so far to the left you can't even see the center anymore.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: BTW, it is you (and others who don't know of or understand classical liberalism) who calls me a libertarian, and I go along with it for convenience's sake. I call myself a classical liberal.

you have no right to refer to yourself as a classical liberal when you are willing to 'sell out' the rights and freedoms of entire groups of people through your support of the Republican party. Let's face it, people like you are more than happy to have the rights of others infringed upon, if it means seeing your economic agenda imposed on an unwilling populace.

When have I supported the Republican party? It says a lot for the weakness of your argument when you feel you have to tell blatant lies in order to prop it up.

 

[Genx87]

Actually my position isn't remotely authoritarian. In general, my aim would be to ensure that all citizens have the maximum amount of freedom possible to conduct their lives as they see fit. However your "freedom" to own a gun is relevant to me and other citizens, because chances are someone is going to be killed or hurt by the gun you own. You only have to look at the statistics for homicides or accidental deaths via guns to realize how insane the situation is in the USA.

The chances of my car killing or hurting somebody else is greater. Are you going to propose legislation to take away my car to protect society? What is next? How about red meat because in excess it can create heart problems. How about Alcohol? Yeah prohibition worked wonderfully, made the Mob what it is today.

Do you see the problem with trying to protect people from themselves based on what "you" think is bad for them?

Yes your idea's are authortarian in nature. Anytime you use the govt to impose your will on the people to restrict their freedoms, it is authortarian in nature.

btw saying Vic votes for Republicans? A big fat lmao at you sir!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: BTW, it is you (and others who don't know of or understand classical liberalism) who calls me a libertarian, and I go along with it for convenience's sake. I call myself a classical liberal.

you have no right to refer to yourself as a classical liberal when you are willing to 'sell out' the rights and freedoms of entire groups of people through your support of the Republican party. Let's face it, people like you are more than happy to have the rights of others infringed upon, if it means seeing your economic agenda imposed on an unwilling populace.

When have I supported the Republican party? It says a lot for the weakness of your argument when you feel you have to tell blatant lies in order to prop it up.

It's obvious the fool hasn't got a clue, he's just making things up now.

 

[Vic]

Well yeah... the idea that my views are socially conservative must be quite shocking to those people who actually are socially conservative!

aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

Socialists have a real problem on their hands, an unsolvable contradiction. I would sum it up like this: if I were asked if a starving person has the right to steal bread from someone who has plenty, I would answer an emphatic yes. And so I am sure would the socialists, and they would then discuss how next to use the power of the collective in order to steal from the individual. But here's the rub: they're not starving.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm not trying to be pleasant, so piss off. You're wrong, I've proven it, and you have nothing to stand on now.

I made the point that most people calling themselves libertarians on political forums such as this are actually quite socially conservative. I have seen this pattern again and again. It's a pattern that you and Vic fit into quite neatly. The fact that a textbook libertarianism would include socially liberal attitudes hardly invalidates my point. In fact, my point only makes sense in the context of that fact. I,e:

"I've yet to hear a so-called libertarian [on these forums] passionately defend gay rights (which you would do, if you actually believed in the principles you espouse)."

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the classic definition of liberal.

'classical' liberalism does not reference contemporary (i.e., NEO-liberal) concepts of "fiscal conservatism", dipsh1t.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's too bad the term has been hijacked by leftist authoritarians.

The term libertarian has been 'hijacked' by social-conservative wankers who don't like paying taxes for the services they make use of or benefit from on a daily basis (roads, public education, libraries, etc.)

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The only reason you think libertarians are conservative is because you're so far to the left you can't even see the center anymore.

How am I "so far to the left"..?

Gun control is hardly a "far left" aim. Actually, it is a very moderate/ mainstream aim.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: BoberFett
How is that any different than people who are terrified at the notion of government intrusion into the conversations and correspondence of it citizens? Does that indicate a warped mind?

I'd say it indicates a quite reasonable concern for individual citizens' privacy. There's not really much of a convincing justification for the state to be snooping at random on citizens' correspondence.

With unfettered access to all communication, crime would plummet. Taps on every phone, every letter scanned, emails logged. Any time some stalker on the internet went after little kids in a chatroom, the government would be right on top of him. The fact that you can't imagine how complete access to all communication would help law enforcement means you lack imagination.

Is there any particular reason why you are being so utterly obnoxious? Your flinging of insults is tiresome.

I said there is "not really much of a convincing justification for the state to be snooping at random on citizens' correspondence". And there isn't. Which is not to say I "can't imagine how complete access to all communication would help law enforcement". Your reading comprehension is poor, or you are lazy or stupid. Imagining how random snooping on citizen's correspondence might help law enforcement is one thing, justifying such behavior is something else entirely. A hypothesized reduction in crime is not enough to justify the loss of privacy, in my view (and the view of most first world nations, hence the requirement for court orders before state officials can tap phones or intercept mail.)

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yet you want to snoop in my cabinet to see if I have a gun. Ironic.

I would seek to limit the freedoms of others, in some circumstances where those "freedoms" are going to have the potential to kill myself or my loved ones. It's not that ownership of weapons of mass slaughter (rifles, handguns, etc) is a freedom that "doesn't interest me". I just don't want to be shot, and I don't want anyone else being shot. Therefore, you don't get to own a gun.

I also support e.g., laws prohibiting driving while under the influence of alcohol and certain other mind-altering drugs. I would be surprised if too many people would classify these kinds of limits to freedom as being "authoritarian".

Part of living in a society involves not being entirely selfish, and actually modifying one's behavior out of consideration to the rights of other people. I do believe that you should be prevented - by law - from driving drunk. Is that "authoritarian"..? I doubt many people would say it is.

My basic stance re: laws and people's behaviors is permissive. I don't support any sex crime laws other than the basic laws pertaining to age of consent and lack of consent. I think all drugs should be available without prescription, including all of the recreational drugs that are currently prohibited. Etc.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I own a gun. Several in fact. None of them have ever killed anybody. Neither have 99.9% of the guns owned in the US. That sounds like pretty good odds to me.

I'd be looking more at the numbers of people dying from gunshot wounds, as compared to countries without the USA gun culture.

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You've just shown how much of a fool you are. Libertarians fully support gay rights. The government has no business defining marriage. They do have a requirement to protect civil liberties which apply to all people. If you seriously think libertarians don't support gay rights, stop posting right now. You're a goddam fool.

Edit: Here you go, dumbass. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexgend

I've been pretty clear about making a distinction between the kinds of fvcktards you find on forums such as this who call themselves libertarian - e.g., you, Vic - and a textbook libertarian who knows her political science history. Where are the self-described libertarians on this forum, for example, who defend gay rights? They don't exist. Or they are too busy whining about having to pay taxes.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

Really? So believing that what you do is your own business is "intrinsically" socially conservative and the cause of discrimination? Wow... black IS white... that's frickin' amazing!!!

:roll:


edit: Oh sh!t, I better pull back... you might insult my mother again... :Q

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

Really? So believing that what you do is your own business is "intrinsically" socially conservative and the cause of discrimination? Wow... black IS white... that's frickin' amazing!!!

it certainly is a socially conservative notion. it underlies a certain kind of response to discrimination against gay people: "I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but WHY do they have to flaunt their sexuality?"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Vic
aidanjm's problem on this issue (and unfortunately I've come head-on with this before) is that he wants to be worshipped because he is gay, and the fact that I am so genuinely socially liberal that I really don't care whether someone is gay or not (as I consider sexual orientation to be in the "private sphere") is something that he simply cannot tolerate. Better to him if I were a homophobe (of course, after saying this, I'm sure he'll call me one :roll: ).

mostly I find you to be just a very tiresome old fart, and I have difficulty remembering past conversations with you - but I do have a recollection of you trying to mask a quite socially conservative outlook. Even the notion of sexuality as "belonging" in the private sphere is intrinsically conservative, and of course the underlying rational for a great deal of discrimination against gay people (or alternatively the rationale for a lack of action against discrimination against gay people - this is perhaps more your style - it's a homophobia or heterosexism that relies more on what isn't said, than what is said).

Really? So believing that what you do is your own business is "intrinsically" socially conservative and the cause of discrimination? Wow... black IS white... that's frickin' amazing!!!

it certainly is a socially conservative notion. it underlies a certain kind of response to discrimination against gay people: "I don't care what they do in the bedroom, but WHY do they have to flaunt their sexuality?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*breathe*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:laugh:

whew

Wow, your sexual insecurity is too much. No wonder most of the other gays here have come out more than once saying that you don't speak for them.

Listen. I'm straight. I don't expect you to care and I could give a sh!t if you do. You're gay. Whoop-de-doo. It's the same thing.