Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:05 am

The Self indulgent reckless behavior you champion tends to leave other people footing the bill, be it in money or heartache.

Only if government is involved.

BTW if you have found a way to stop humans from being human the world awaits.

How do you like paying the government to subsidize the drug cartels? Are you getting your money's worth?

You might like this:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/12/beyo ... ent-fails/

Nice video that discusses why government screws up everything it touches. Because government incentives are not your incentives.

Since the government has an "anti-poverty program" there will be no end to poverty - why would you expect it? The poverty pimps need jobs. And for the same reason why would you expect government to do anything effective about the drug problem? In fact it is in their interest to make it worse. Now why would you want that?

I look forward to the day when "conservatives" apply their understanding to the whole range of government programs. Maybe in a hundred or a thousand years. Or maybe never. Why? Well they love the government tit just as much as liberals. The difference? Well liberals love the left tit and conservatives love the right. Some difference.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:25 am

BTW I don't champion reckless behavior. What I point out is that there isn't much you can do to stop it. So what is the most effective thing government can do? Subsidize it. With your money.

I propose ending government subsidies for everything including drug cartels. I wish conservatives lived up to the words they mouth. You know - "Government isn't the solution - it is the problem."

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:18 pm

The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children

"Towelhead"

"Woodsman"

"Birth"

Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmno ... -children/

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:20 pm

Boston Globe celebrates sex-changes for children by major hospital on front page of Sunday edition.

And the Boston Globe portrays all this as not only normal, but a as ground-breaking, progressive, positive event which only ignorant, hateful, and backwards people would dare to criticize.

http://www.massresistance.com/docs/gen/ ... index.html

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:24 pm

So you think government can stop it? You think your rants will change anything?

We actually have laws against molesting children (which IMO is an actual proper government function). It didn't stop it and Polanski escaped to Europe where he is celebrated.

Government can't stop people from hurting others. How much more difficult it is for government to stop people from hurting themselves? And in fact respect for government declines when it tries.

BTW I notice you failed to address ANY of my points. Funny that.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:27 pm

If you have found a way to stop humans from being human the world awaits.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:49 pm

MSimon wrote:So you think government can stop it? You think your rants will change anything?

Society can stop it if society is made aware of it and imbued with the knowledge that it is wrong.

You may not realize it, but your argument justifies ANYTHING.

MSimon wrote: We actually have laws against molesting children (which IMO is an actual proper government function). It didn't stop it and Polanski escaped to Europe where he is celebrated.

We do FOR NOW, But for how long? (You may have missed it, but that is the ENTIRE point of this thread.)

MSimon wrote: Government can't stop people from hurting others. How much more difficult it is for government to stop people from hurting themselves? And in fact respect for government declines when it tries.

For someone so knowledgeable and so logical, I am constantly amazed at your adherence to the childish notion that if you can't stop it all, it is unsuccessful. What engineered process do you know of which is 100% efficient?

Society, (through social pressure AND government) routinely stops a thousand fold more murders, rapes, and thefts than we suffer from. A pervasive moral code (which is becoming less pervasive all the time) coupled with the deterrence effect of punishment PREVENTS most crimes from happening.

MSimon wrote:
BTW I notice you failed to address ANY of my points. Funny that.

Two reasons. 1. I have been extremely busy this last week and a half, and 2. Often it is pointless in trying to reason with someone who's mind is made up. But more of the former than the later, I tend to be a stubborn glutton for punishment.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:55 pm

MSimon wrote:If you have found a way to stop humans from being human the world awaits.

That is the failing of communism; the complete misunderstanding of human nature.

No one is trying to stop humans from being human, they are only being urged to move in the direction of civilization as opposed to back towards barbarity.

Civilization occurs because humans learn to control their urges.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:11 am

Diogenes wrote:Yes, science is now making possible such debauchery as has never been tolerated by nature before.

Indeed. We hardly need to walk long distances any more. We can watch machines do the work. We can fly, and even jump off the plane for fun. We don't need to go hunting any more, water flows into our houses, food comes delivered. We can safely eat animals which used to be considered dirty. We don't need to have 12 children to see 6 survive to adulthood. But we can still have more sex.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to tie in with morality, though.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:27 am

Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Yes, science is now making possible such debauchery as has never been tolerated by nature before.
Indeed. We hardly need to walk long distances any more. We can watch machines do the work. We can fly, and even jump off the plane for fun. We don't need to go hunting any more, water flows into our houses, food comes delivered. We can safely eat animals which used to be considered dirty. We don't need to have 12 children to see 6 survive to adulthood. But we can still have more sex.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to tie in with morality, though.

Yes, a willful misunderstanding of the point. Not a thing you mentioned was an example of "debauchery."

So If I am to follow your reasoning, flowing water justifies molesting children?

Perhaps you will walk back your analogy.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:42 am

Not a thing you mentioned was an example of "debauchery."

But it is unnatural. And if you know human history there is nothing more natural than molesting children. Greeks did it. Romans did it and Islam has followed the tradition. It was their lot in life until very recently. I don't like it. You don't like it. But facts are what they are.

And stealing? You could do what you liked to the other tribes. If you dared. "Universal" morality is a new thing. Well except for the Jews who had that tradition going on for about 2500 years. Before that they were pretty much like the rest.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:57 am

Diogenes, I'm just guessing here, but I'm doubting you watched the films you listed above. If you did you'd realize in Towelhead, the adult was arrested and was NOT a sympathetic character. You'd also note that in Birth, there was no sex between a child and an adult, just a creepy story of reincarnation. Woodsman was about a child molester who was attempting to start anew. He has a very serious mental disease and was more about seeking rehabilitation than about child molestation. Furthermore, these were not at all released in the same year, but were 2004, 2005, and 2007. I don't mind you arguing a point, but at least use reliable information when doing so.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:18 am

MSimon wrote: And stealing? You could do what you liked to the other tribes. If you dared. "Universal" morality is a new thing. Well except for the Jews who had that tradition going on for about 2500 years. Before that they were pretty much like the rest.

Just as a point of clarification, when was it that the Jews stopped saying in effect "you can charge usery to the goyim but not to the people"?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:30 am

KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: And stealing? You could do what you liked to the other tribes. If you dared. "Universal" morality is a new thing. Well except for the Jews who had that tradition going on for about 2500 years. Before that they were pretty much like the rest.
Just as a point of clarification, when was it that the Jews stopped saying in effect "you can charge usery to the goyim but not to the people"?

I believe that is false information. I studied the Talmud on the matter and never found anything like that. Besides charging interest was a great innovation for a money economy. Before that interest went like this: you pledged your cattle as collateral which the lender kept and his profit was in kind. i.e. any animals born while the lender held them. That was in the Talmud. Of course the Talmud recorded all kinds of opinions on any given subject. So there may have been the opinions you "cite" but they were not generally followed. They were outliers.

In fact the church held on to the old rules and kept the vast majority of its subjects in poverty because money was kept buried in the yard or under the mattress. People couldn't lend it at a profit. The Jews made out like bandits because they had no competition for 1500 or 1800 years. Don't blame it on the Jews when it was the church that did it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:54 am

Society can stop it if society is made aware of it and imbued with the knowledge that it is wrong.

Of course. I never said otherwise. In fact "awareness campaigns" is what I have suggested over and over.

As to my argument "justifying anything"? Well only if you mischaracterize the libertarian argument which is: "my right to swing my arm ends just before I reach the tip of your nose". Otherwise I own my body. It is my RIGHT to use it as I see fit.

Your argument is fit for slaves. And if you want to be one I'm happy for you. It is not for me. I will continue to do what I have always done "live free" and only have personal interactions with consenting adults.

You can make all the laws you want. Americans (generally) will only follow them if they agree with them. And you need more than 51% agreement for laws to be effective. My threshold is 99%. Less than that and the outlaw culture, so vibrant in America, takes over.

Look at the mess we have from 95% (formerly) agreeing with the prohibition laws. And even that agreement level has gone down considerably and is still declining. Evidently even having government on your side is not making the case. It is worse than useless to have laws on the books that people will not obey.