You are a wise mane, for an infidel. I think I will kill you last.
Posted on 02/11/2009 10:33:53 AM PST by NYer
That certainly doesn't sound conservative. Government is not a charity. It should never be thought of as such. Not using Government funds to fund abortion would strike me as being more plausably socially conservative.
Social, Fiscal and Defense.
Defense seems like a no-brainer, yet I would disagree to the idea that our defense needs to be used as a tool of foreign intervention to the degree it is being used currently. Fiscal would be nice. And Once Upon A Time I thought that some republicans who were hardly Conservative in regard to the Judeo-Christian ethos had at least some fiscal sense, but I have been proven woefully wrong on that score. As for social, I can see many areas of American culture that ought to be more conservative, but I've also seen some draw a distinction between social and religious conservatism.
“Defense seems like a no-brainer, yet I would disagree to the idea that our defense needs to be used as a tool of foreign intervention to the degree it is being used currently.”
I would say that for about the last 6 years (as of next month) our foreign intervention has been overdone.
Dating.
Yes, but it is a bit euphemistic. Technically, dating is not yet a consummated sexual relationship, it is spending time together in a social setting: a movie date.
You are a wise mane, for an infidel. I think I will kill you last.
I’ve already refuted your many fallacies on this subject. If you want to live like Nature Boy, naked in the jungle because you reject technological triumphs over the inconveniences of physiology, then why are your still on the Internet?
Wrong. Human physique (well, your posts indicate that there are exceptions) includes a rational brain, through which undesired aspects of nature may be overcome.
And those of us who do are generous about trying to educate those of you who are confused.
The "demographic crisis" is as phony as the New Ice Age, er, Global Warming, er Watch This Space crisis.
This is why some "conservatives" (e.g. Dinesh D'Sousa) are not really on board with the war against the Islamic Fundamentalist enemy. They realize that the obvious parallels between the enemy and themselves are embarassing, and will ultimately do to their position what the war against the Nazis did to genteel anti-Semitism.
Indeed.
The people who want The Guvmint To Do Something are simply welfare bums who don't want to do the work themselves.
Ah, so you're a Moral Relativist, then. That explains much about the inconsistencies of your arguments.
If you want to live like Nature Boy
I don't. I am very happy with the advances of science, use it and recommend other to use it. Contraception just happens not to be among these advances.
a rational brain, through which undesired aspects of nature may be overcome
Indeed; see above.
The "demographic crisis" is as phony
Birth rates way below replacement are reality, unlike the other invented scares.
so you're a Moral Relativist, then [indicating that banning contraception might be impractical].
No, that is not what moral relativism is. A moral relativist is one who says that contraception is either a moral wrong or a moral good depending on who is using it.
Nonsense. People noticed a problem to be solved, and through application of science solved it. That's an "advance" by definition.
Birth rates way below replacement are reality
The dumping of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a reality. The question in both cases is whether it means ONOZ OMG WE'RE DOOOOMMMMEEEEEDDDDD!! (as hysterics immediately assume).
A moral relativist is one who says that contraception is either a moral wrong or a moral good depending on who is using it.
No, a "moral relativist" is someone who declares practicality rather than principle to be the ultimate decider, as you have done in Msg#70. In this specific case, you are restrained by belief that people would resist your coercive agenda, not by the realization that your coercive agenda is morally wrong and driven by hubris. That makes you the moral equivalent of a habitual criminal who stays his hand for the moment because he spots a cop in the vicinity.
The belief that a given tool is morally neutral in itself, and acquires an association with rightness or wrongness depending upon its use, is better known as "sanity". Admittedly, not all people are sane. For example, there are people who think that firearms are mystically possessed with evil minds of their own (as opposed to being inanimate objects which may sometimes be used inappropriately). You seem to have the same fetish with respect to certain chemicals.
The hubris is even worse than I thought, it seems....
Self mutilation, temporary or permanent, through contraception is not a solution of any problem.
Yes, the demographic crisis can be reversed, chiefly by eschewing the contraceptive mentality and return to traditional sexual morals. Now that would be a solution to an real problem, which for motst peopel does not require any technology.
Recognizing a constraint is not moral relativism.
A line of argument that leads to the conclusion that aspirin and decongestant are instruments of “self-mutilation” is not going to convince sane people.
Curing a disease is not self-mutilation. Birth control is.
Irrelevant; none of the three examples cited cures any disease.
Headache or running nose are not disease?
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.