Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
[DAnconia55]: "Uh-huh. Guess I said all that somewhere. Don't remember it. But whatever."
You don't remember? Permit me to help you out here.
From your post 190:
[DAnconia55]: "No. (but shouldn't be illegal either).
Sure, if anyone's that dumb they deserve two wives.
Be more specific.
Yes.
Tacky, but yes...
So you've stated that you're ok with adults exposing themselves to children in public places and engaging in sex acts in front of those children. Those were the questions posed to you and, as I've shown, you answered in the affirmative in both cases.
I hope this clears up your memory problem for you. I doubt I can help you with your morality problem.
I like to HOPE that this is coming from Bush's close friends and advisors who are CFR all the way, rather than the President himself. Still...GWB has to bear some responsibility for allowing this agenda to advance. If I were King and had my way, membership in CFR or any other globalist organization would be an automatic disqualifier to any sort of government employment.
It's better to have a tyranny of a 2% minority?
I want to be sure I understand you, Jorge...
Is that your argument?
If the police try to arrest me I can claim my "right to privacy" has been invaded?
You're twisting. I didn't say CONDONE.
I said that there shouldn't a law against it. That's the difference between you and me.
Just because I don't feel like being a nudist, doesn't mean I'm going to try to stop others from doing it.
This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.
Or has it become a least-common-denominator and apatheistic libertarianism News Forum, Mr. Robinson?
What it certainly is NOT is a gathering place for Fred Phelps types. Which there's been a lot of here recently.
Appeal to authority, tsk tsk... means you lost. :)
This site has been overrun by homosexual apologists and amoral libertarians
Yeah. Well some of us believe in this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thoroughgoing, politically active Evangelical Christians and other moralists may be only about 15%, but there is much more ground for us take...
I rather doubt it. Your numbers are dwindling and will continue to do so.
Totalibertarian stomach and crotch worshippers are fewer, because those who want the freedom to feed all their appetites and whims, are chiefly those most willing to sell their true freedom for the fulfillment vices.
Well, I don't have anything against people eating fast food if that's what a 'stomach worshipper' is. That's a new one on me.
You misunderstand freedom, then. Just because I want crack legalized doesn't mean I'm going to run out and smoke it. I don't need the law to restrain me. It doesn't anyway when I want to do something that is illegal while not being immoral. (No force/fraud,etc.)
The idea that libertarians (small l) or liberty oriented people argue for freedom simply for the ability to 'do' something themselves is wearing a bit thin.
Perhaps you'd like to accuse some of the liberty defending GOPers on this thread of wanting to sodomize a gay man?
That's consistent with your argument after all.
Oh?!? Run it by some of the Pro-WODdies and see what answers you get :)
Some posters on FR do.
Look they already have their War on Drugs.
Next, they'll start a War on Gays. WOG.
Then they can get all the cute uniforms with all the leather and invade gay bathhouses in SWAT formation.....
Thanks, Hammurabi, but no.
The duty of law is the protection of rights.
You're speaking out of the wrong oriface again.
How would 'society' (Which does not exist) not 'tolerate' something?
Nah, you don't want to lock them. You want to kill them all?
What that leads to is an attitude among heterosexuals that non-procreative sex is the norm, all social taboos on abberant sexuality begin to collapse and you have the disintegration of the nuclear family, the basis of stable society.
Non-Procreative Sex IS THE NORM.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're utterly clueless about reality.
Most people - brace yourself, this will be hard - HAVE SEX FOR PLEASURE.
How can anyone who thinks read that rubbish and not understand the contradictions. It reads like something Hitler or Stalin would have written.
T, man, sigh....ow. My head hurts....
Yes, we're horrible people. We don't believe babies are evil monsters.
How shocking that we think they are innocents.
Which of those things you are doing are force or fraud?
None.
So no. They shouldn't be able to arrest you, or enter your house.
But we've got a long way to go before we get to that state of freedom.
(We won't actually... it's one step forward two steps back.)
I am ok with nudity in front of children. If you don't teach them to be ashamed of their bodies in the first place, then you won't have the hang ups on nudity.
I don't see any reason why we can't have nude beaches around the country, instead of just in a few places.
That said, I have no overwhelming desire to run and join a nudist camp. See how that works? I let other people alone to do what they want to do, and then I do what I want to do. Neat, huh?
Sex is similar but more complicated. Our society is so screwed up, we've turned something NORMAL into something dirty. WHEN we undo all that mental damage, I see no reason why it should be a big deal if a kid catches a couple having sex on a beach somewhere.
I'm far more concerned about kids watching PBS, CNN, and leftist political indoctrinating crap over the TV than I am about them seeing something that is perfectly normal for humans to do.
So yes, you're twisting.
[DAnconia55]: "No. (but shouldn't be illegal either).
Sure, if anyone's that dumb they deserve two wives.
Be more specific.
Yes.
Tacky, but yes...
So you've stated that you're ok with adults exposing themselves to children in public places and that you're ok with adults engaging in sex acts in front of children in public places. It's right there in black and white for anybody to read and understand.
I didn't ask you about what should or shouldn't be legal. I asked you what you were ok with and you told me.
Frankly, your answer didn't surprise me. On this thread, you've repeatedly stated that you want all laws pertaining to public morals abolished [posts 186, 205]. IOW, you don't believe that a community has the right to enforce its own standards of public decency. What more can be expected of a man who boasts in a public forum that he routinely sodomizes his wife [post 208] or who fails to make a distinction between freedom and license [post 237]?
Yes. Here I was thinking of the nude beach type setting. Sure. No problem there at all. And I think you understand me clearly.
But I'd also have no problem with it, if a mall owner wanted to go nudist either.
Not saying I'd shop there, but...
Engage in sexual activity in front of same?"
I'm arguing against your absolutism.
The question should be : Should there be a law against kids seeing two people have sex.
My answer is no.
So yes, it is ok if "Engage in sexual activity in front of (snip) parents and children". Because to say no would give you license to create criminals out of something that is normal, and not dirty no matter how much you want to make it.
Sex is part of human life like eating, sleeping and breathing. Your fundamentalist drive to hide it, to make kids curious, to teach them that something that is normal for their bodies (and don't give me crap, I remember being a teenage boy) - is far more harmful than seeing a naked couple on a beach. Or even a naked couple having sex.
If we were mentally healthy about sex, and came upon a couple on a beach somewhere having sex - then the parents and kids would see the couple and move away to give them privacy. And no doubt the kids would giggle about it....
There is nothing good in a society that treats sex as dirty. In fact, I'd bet that part of the overabundance of sexuality - the 'obsession' if you will, is DUE to the puritanical societal mores.
We're not on the same plane.
I'm advocating extreme social and functional change. And you're trying to use your current (and Puritanical, if I may) mindset now to frame the cultural reaction to the events. I seek to change the cultural reactions.
Never had sex outside, have you?
And your views on exposing children to sex and nudity place you way over on the far lunatic fringe with people like Larry Flynnt. Americans do not want their children exposed to these things. In fact, practically every community in the United States has laws against them and when people who think like you do flash youngsters or commit lewd acts in front of them, parents summon the police -- just as any responsible and moral person would.
I don't know what appalls me more -- your immorality or your dishonesty. Maybe it's a toss-up.
In response to your indelicate remarks about your wife [post 208], pram suggested you might want to seek a more appropriate forum for such confessions [post 216], to which you responded that your perversions were shared by "the huge vast majority of Americans" [post 218].
When pram challenged you on that claim, asking you for your source on percentage of heterosexuals practicing sodomy [post 223], you could only present equivocal data of 25% from a University of Chicago study and a cumulative figure of 30% from other surveys [post 233]. These numbers you somehow transmuted into 40%, a figure still far short of "the huge vast majority of Americans" who purportedly share your enthusiasm for sodomy. Having failed to prove your claim, you mocked pram for a fool. But there was only one fool in that exchange and it sure wasn't pram.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.