Wait, let me crank on this handle
At least the ice cream machine starts right up again
Joe got it just right, I think the argument can be easily made that Life, Liberty, andthe Pursuit of Happiness are the most basic of human rights, and the examples I gave were specific to someone denying someone else of those rights.
Murder deprives someone of their right to Life.
Rape deprives someone of their right to freedom
Theft deprives someone of their property, and can certainly affect their pursuit of happiness.
That morality is secular, and exists outside of any faith.
There are tenets of faith that each faith considers it’s morality; certainly, Catholics have their share of prohibitions as do Jews, and the buddhists and muslims are another thing altogether. At the end of the discussion, though, all sane people can agree on the morality based, as I’ve said, on nothing more than basic human rights.
I am of the opinion that the more laws that are made that protect manufactured rights (green/environmental laws, hate crime legislation yadda yadda) the further they stray from what is right and proper. I am no more enamoured of laws that are designed to make theological morality secular.
Point: Abortion is NOT a theoogical moral. It is strictly secular, and always has been: Abortion deprives an individual of it’s right to life. In the case of rape, can anyone here tell me how an immoral act makes another immoral act ok? Anyone? Point:Gay marriage is not and never has been about the freedom of one group to do as they please, it is about one group (And a bloody small one, to boot) depriving another group of their right to worship as they please. Anyone who doesn’t see this has well and truly drunk the kool-ade.
More after I’ve slept. Long week trying to kill bambi with zero success.
17 comments Og | Uncategorized
Only two religions fail to draw the same lines as christianity. Government and Islam.
Both will allow any or all of these acts in the correct situation.
H’mmm, so group size makes a difference in terms of human rights? And persons X and Y getting civilly married infringes on the religious freedom of (far larger) group Z? That’s the same kind of reasoning behind the European persecution of Jews (Sumptuary laws, barring from certain professions, neighborhoods or even entire nations).
So miscarriage is manslaughter? How about contraception — premeditated murder, innit?
It would be nice if there was a simple, rationally and universally-agreeable basis for some irreducible minimum of law but there is not. People live in peace and harmony (or at least toleration) to the precise extent they are willing to do so. Incongruities exist. No sophistry can erase them.
Gay marriage is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. If you are unaware of the agenda gay marriage represents i reccomend you do a little research.
“H’mmm, so group size makes a difference in terms of human rights?”
Let’s just bookmark that and revisit it.
“And persons X and Y getting civilly married infringes on the religious freedom of (far larger) group Z?”
yes, yes it does. And if you don’t “believe” that, you once again illustrate my issues with the term belief. But let’s look, for instance, at this:
Money quotes:
“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,â€
“I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.â€
“Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.â€
“Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.â€
“Hope the gay waiters at their hotel p—ed in all the drinks they served these cretins,â€
What, you say? just a few isolated people, all gays are not like that?
Let’s revisit this shall we?
“H’mmm, so group size makes a difference in terms of human rights?”
Now, as for this, “That’s the same kind of reasoning behind the European persecution of Jews (Sumptuary laws, barring from certain professions, neighborhoods or even entire nations).”
No, it’s not, but thanks for playing.Never had anyone resort to godwin so quickly. If you don’t understand that this is different than what I’m talking about, you are not reading what I wrote, but overlaying your personal prejudices on my statements. Period.
Now for this:
“So miscarriage is manslaughter? How about contraception — premeditated murder, innit?”
I’m going to treat this as if you had asked a civil, reasonable question and not as the snarky asinine statement meant to demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority to the Cro Magnon you apparently think you address.
Miscarriage isn’t a single thing. Miscarriage can be caused by a number of things. Which did you mean? If you mean miscarriage caused by a man kicking a woman in the stomach to cause the child to miscarry, yes. If you mean miscarriage caused by other reasons, like malnutrition, or diabetes, or infections, that’s as much manslaughter as it is manslaughter when someone dies of- oh, I don’t know, malnutrition, diabetes, infections, etc. Nobody should have to have this explained to them, it’s simple reasoning.
“It would be nice if there was a simple, rationally and universally-agreeable basis for some irreducible minimum of law but there is not.”
I have just pointed it out. Try and keep up. It’s not perfect, but it’s perfectly simple.
“People live in peace and harmony (or at least toleration) to the precise extent they are willing to do so.”
Well, that at least is true.
“Incongruities exist. No sophistry can erase them. ”
The only incongruity in my post is where what I have demonstrated is oncongruous with your feelings, not the basic facts. I can’t change the facts, and your feelings have no value to anyone but you.
I had it shoved in my face this Thanksgiving that progressives do not view the 2nd Amendment as a positive affirmation and protection of a basic human right that pre-existed any government of men, but rather, as a negative roadblock in their ongoing attempt to get rid of nastyawfulnoisy guns, which roadblock they believe prevents whirled peas, or something like that.
Anyway, I always knew that progressives care nothing for individual human rights, but believe that only government (and only progressive, cradle-to-grave government) can protect us from ourselves. But I had never had it as an epiphany before my father-in-law spouted nonsense about how the 2nd Amendment applied only to weapons that took three seconds or more to load, e.g., muzzle-loading muskets. Yes, my otherwise-intelligent engineer father-in-law actually said that. Hilarity (well, only in retrospect, I guess) ensued, and I am once more persona non grata in that household. And I don’t care.
The bottom line is that eventually those of us on the side of individual human rights are going to say, “That’s enough,” and then the bloodshed is going to start.
Yeah, I need to get up there and have that heart-to-heart with you soon, Og.
Nathan: Let us plan for that and not just dream of it. How is your schedule after the first of the year?
This country is being torn apart because even people who have no real dog in the fight THINK because some group holler loud enough and repeatedly enough that they have a legit grievance. This is media manipulation pure and simple. Had the media done even a part of this favorable sort of thing with the TEA Party movement, not only would Bummer be on his way out, but we would have nominated some decent conservative well to the right of Bumney.
Because civil unions don’t have the same societal recognition as marriage, somehow a human right is dissed? How can strong individualists fall for this crap?
This is the ESSENCE of the Political Correctness that the Critical Theorists dreamed up — to try to force those who don’t agree with whatever the proposition is to cower to the deemed wisdom of some self-assessed higher — whatever-she wants to think of herself.
I suspect that Rx is not alone. Many see that our non-approval of using the term marriage for civil unions as somehow deprives the same sex couple of happiness. I cannot imagine YOU (Og) seeking others approval for your own happiness, but there ARE morons who think it necessary. It’s not even close. And thus Lenin knew very well of whom he spoke. And 75 years of slavery followed.
Pascal: weaseling? Tsk. I don’t care what you *call* it; I specifically referred to CIVIL marriage, in contrast to whatever barbaric religious ritual people choose to decorate their union, rituals that are, by definition, not government-sanctioned. It’s pretty clear government may not regulate the latter — nor churches dictate the former. (Ask the LDS).
Og, you’re arguing based on personalities and on that whole goofball “gay agenda” thing. Are there LGB-whatever groups with sweeping political ambitions out there? Oh, hell yes, just like there is every other kind of group. But the overlap between them and people like the gay couple I know who have been together for 35 years? Very damn small. Why do you hate those guys? Doesn’t it tick you off when all gunnies are characterized as crazed, racist militia guys?
I’m not cowering to anybody’s “deemed wisdom,” just following my own sense of decency — composed of both logic and, yes, emotion. I’m not Ayn Rand and neither are you.
“I’m not Ayn Rand and neither are you.”
Thank GOD! I wouldn’t be associated with that fucktard for all the tea.
I will never be able to reach you, because you have your “Own sense of decency”. In other words, an embedded set of prejudices against anything that does not fit into your comfort zone.
“I have gay friends that….” I don’t CARE. The “I have friends” argument is specious at best. You automatically assume I hate gay people, and that is not only wrong, but displays your intense ignorance of who I am.
“Goofball gay agenda”. Like the goofball anti gun agenda? Like any goofball leftist agenda? Is it goofball because you don’t like it, or because you don’t “believe” any of those wonderful gay people you’re so fond of could do anything like that? You can be willfully blind, but i will not. The destruction of the Church is already beginning, and you’re probably fine with that. I’m not. Your comparison of “Anti gays” (Which of course I am not, as anyone with three brain cells who reads this blog knows)with “Anti gunnies” is not only plainly ignorant of the facts, but is precisely 180 degrees out of phase.
“Why do you hate those guys?”
I know NOBODY who gives a flying rats ass if two girls bump pussies or if two guys slobber on each other’s knobs, we JUST DON’T FUCKING CARE. You are insane if you think I do. I don’t give a flying rats ass what people do, as long as they do not do it to me. And they are demonstrably doing it to me, and the height of hypocrisy exists when you expect me to be “Tolerant” of that. Sorry, it’s true. Deal.
“Pascal: weaseling?”
Pity you have never taken the time to know Pascal as have I. If you had you’d be offering your apologies for that stunning lack of understanding of who he is. I won’t hold my breath, and I’ll advise Pascal not to do so either.
Gads, Og, your “an embedded set of prejudices against anything that does not fit into your comfort zone” is showing, especially with the ludicrous “the Gheys are using the State to destroy the Church.” Or your Church in particular, perhaps — an international organization of vast resources, thousands of years old. Yeah, let’s see what the politically active five percent of maybe ten percent of the population can do in a nation where separation of Church and State is part of the basic document underlying government. Paranoid much?
Pascal IS weaseling, attempting to conflate religious wedlock, civil marriage and civil unions (the latter also banned by Indiana’s proposed Constitutional amendment, which puts an end to his strawman).
You do care what people do: you’ve singled out certain of them as unfit to marry one another on the basis of what they do and who they are.
You wrote, ‘Your comparison of “Anti gays†(…) with “Anti gunnies†is not only plainly ignorant of the facts, but is precisely 180 degrees out of phase.’
Really? Both groups take the most scarily-extreme examples of people and behavior they find offensive and attempt to paint the entire target group as acting and thinking that way. Both of them are often as crudely offensive as a Klan cartoon depicting blacks as stupid and lazy and Catholics as the overbreeding, impoverished, mindless followers of a corrupt, decadent leader living large on their tithes. It’s pretty standard propaganda, demonizing the Other and encouraging thinking of them as less human than oneself. And it still works; just find the right group to demonize and voila!
Um, no on all counts. You really have no idea what you’re talking about; all the things I’ve stated are independantly verifiable facts, and all the things you posit are your personal feelings on the matter. I have no feelings or beliefs in any of this, I’m only reporting facts, and it is completely up to you to pay attention or ignore them.
You don’t even have a dog in this hunt; you’re not religious and you’re not gay. You are adept at demonizing the religious, and quick to support the gay. Which you are free to do, and probably always will be. The rights of the religious are rapidly and continuously being trampled in the New Holy Name of “Tolerance”
Sorry. It’s evil. I’m sorry you cannot open your eyes to see any of it.
On the other hand, it is not the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal, just because you can’t see it, does not mean it cannot see you.
“Pascal is weaseling” Oh really? Answer the question he asks and lets see who weasels.
“Because civil unions don’t have the same societal recognition as marriage, somehow a human right is dissed? How can strong individualists fall for this crap?”
Sorry, Roberta. I love you and I pray for you every single day of my life. Mostly I pray for you to open your eyes to the world outside your door. It does not in any way fit into the mold you have created for it. It would be… interesting, perhaps, if it did, but it does not.
As for this:
“You do care what people do: you’ve singled out certain of them as unfit to marry one another on the basis of what they do and who they are”
That displays a high-order ignorance of my position on the subject, which you don’t know and cannot even begin to understand. Please do try and keep up. Perhaps you could scan some older posts on the subject here and maybe learn something of my position. it verifies that the above statement by you is not just a lie but the kind of filthy propagandist lie that people tell other people to demonise ME.
I’m talking about the national debate. I have no knowledge about IN’s laws or proposals on the subject, but you certainly know of CA’s. In CA we’ve had civil unions for years but that was not enough for ACT UP! and other cultural Marxists. I don’t see you honoring the CA voters in that debate, so maybe the charge of weaseling here is misdirected.
Talk about straw-men? As CA demonstrates, IN could suddenly allow civil unions and that would not be enough. What’s your answer? In the past people who argued as you do have called it is a slippery slope argument, implying it was not yet real, so they allegedly will reconsider when the time has come.
Well the time did come in CA. From you, sound like Sgt Schulz. Yet you declare that I’m weaseling. That’s some chutzpah.
The thin entering wedge is why Incrementalist is much more accurate a name for the group the propaganda media uncritically (that’s a play on words dear) allows to call themselves Progressive.
More to follow.
“Are there LGB-whatever groups with sweeping political ambitions out there? Oh, hell yes, just like there is every other kind of group.”
Egads Roberta. You are giving us a variation of the talking points of CAIR that have been repeated by both Dems and Pubbies regarding terrorists, leaving us with only grim jokes which have the same punchline, “middle eastern men between the ages of 16 and 40.”
You’ve never seen ZombieTime’s photos and videos of the Leftists who parade as if they’re only doing it for gay pride and freedom? Sgt Schultz again.
“Point: Abortion is NOT a theoogical moral. It is strictly secular, and always has been: Abortion deprives an individual of it’s right to life. In the case of rape, can anyone here tell me how an immoral act makes another immoral act ok? Anyone?”
In a similar vein, being the victim of a crime does not entitle a person to commit a crime.
In the secular world we have provisions for justifying the use of deadly force; those same standards need to apply to abortion because it is DEADLY FORCE.
Nicely put Tony!
Thanks. I’m learning.
BTW, just searched and your site for prior posts “gay marriage” and “abortion”. Reading all of them at once provides good context and continuity that I found very useful. Nicely put yourself; and I agree with your conclusions.
Lol. Well that means you must hate gays and women.