Quote: (05-23-2015 04:27 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Quote: (05-23-2015 03:37 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Or it means your children grew up in a society that sought to corrupt them from their youth, leaving you the choice between acquiescing to their corruption or completely sheltering them from those destructive influences. Good luck achieving the latter, especially without the help of religion. What are you going to say to your son when he comes home and tells you he wants to try having sex with a man because his friends and teachers tell him it's perfectly natural? How are you going to tell him it's wrong without having any moral foundation on which to base your beliefs? You will have no legs to stand on. Your objections are then impotent and will be ignored since they will have no basis besides your personal prejudices.

You and your children are not an island. Society has a massive impact on you whether you like it or not. Children are especially vulnerable because they are so impressionable, and look outward to society to learn social norms and behaviors. And the choice is not between norms imposed by God and no norms at all - it's the choice between the norms of God and the norms of man. And as we are currently seeing in the West, the norms of man are inevitably destructive and short-sighted.

While not ideal, a fascist theocracy is at least a stable and proven form of government, unlike libertarianism, which exists nowhere because it is incapable of sustaining and defending itself. When your philosophy of government can be distilled to, "I don't give a shit about anything that happens to anyone except me," your nation isn't going to last very long.

They need a man who provides firm, individual guidance and takes care of his own business.

What sort of cultures have tended to spawn these type of men?

I think it's best to just ignore 'because God' arguments. Because 'God' is whatever the religious says he/it/they is, and because 'God' cannot speak himself, responding to any argument the religious pose puts them in full control.

That would be the best way to keep it on topic.

AB, I want to make sure I understood your story correctly.

Are you saying that an Australian court mandated forcible unsupervised access of an adult to a 3 year old child against the express wishes of that child's parents?

Forget even about the rape claims -- suppose the dyke in question was completely blameless. By what possible law or regulation can a court order a 3 year old child to be taken from his parents and left with another person without the parents' consent and against their wishes? Is there such a law or regulation in Australia?

If this is true it's one of the most insane and incomprehensibly evil things I've ever heard, so I would really like to know. I've heard chilling stories from the UK of "councils" taking children away from parents but they had to provide at least some grounds, ie show that the parents were "abusive" or something along these lines. It's still an outrage but what you are saying seems to far exceed it. Am I missing something?

Another thing I wanted to bring up is the notion that marriage is a "right" of some sort. How did that even come up in the first place? If you are saying people that should have the "right" to love someone, then in that case no one is attempting to infringe on your rights. In fact, the sort of love you have is even celebrated and romanticized by mainstream media and pop culture. Love stories that involve an idealistic young couple fighting against old fogies trying to destroy "real love" have always been beloved by the public. In the past, you would see all these trashy romantic novels and other tales about some young couple forced by their evil traditionalist parents to marry someone else with the audience's sympathies being mean to lie with the love struck youngins. Gay couples now occupy this role. The evolution of marriage from being a duty to that of a vital human right is rather fascinating.

Quote: (05-23-2015 04:34 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Since so many people are unable to make subtle distinctions they will usually have an emotional response along the lines of how pointing this out this means that you must inherently think homosexuals are inferior in every single way. Nothing along those lines is being asserted.

One of the problems with arguing with the cultural left is that their arguments are easier to put on a bumper sticker. "Say no to hate!" "Equality for everyone!" "The right to love!" These phrases may be simple-minded but they have a major emotional impact, especially on millennials. The traditionalist side doesn't have zingers like that. Maybe the closest they ever got was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". But in an increasingly secular society as the West is becoming, that no longer has much sway. I feel that the traditionalist side here is more nuanced and takes more explaining. Like everything I wrote in my big reply to VVVV can't really be put on a bumper sticker. It needs deeper elucidation. The left positions rarely do. Even with something like immigration, all it takes is 5 seconds for a liberal to call someone a racist for opposing illegal immigration. But it might take their opponent 10 minutes to explain why that's not the case.

Now I'm not saying there aren't reasonable people who support gay marriage and make compelling and rational arguments. They exist. I've read strong arguments in favor of gay marriage. But my problems with the liberals is that they will simply not acknowledge any arguments on the other side and will cast their opponents as hate-mongers and try to get them fired from their jobs and shamed using social media. Just like we saw with that exec from Mozilla.

Quote:Quote:

At this point in human history marriage has changed so much that all the original meaning behind it has been lost.

I don't think this is the case. It's a big country and what you see in Hollywood and TV doesn't represent the reality of flyover country. People still get married and raise children every day.

delete

Quote: (05-23-2015 04:49 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

AB, I want to make sure I understood your story correctly.

Are you saying that an Australian court mandated forcible unsupervised access of an adult to a 3 year old child against the express wishes of that child's parents?

Yes. This is the missing link confusing things:

The mother was in a lesbian relationship, had the child with a man but stayed with the lesbian, then left the woman for the man when the child was a year old, political-correctness reforms of the family law courts did the rest. No-one wants to appear 'unprogressive' and risk their jobs by not being 'understanding' of 'modern' family units, where a non-birth parent has equal rights to access.

It's the casual evilness of the media and women in the system that bugs me, but really, it's nothing I wouldn't expect from a sex that can kill their children in the womb if they're an inconvenience to them.

I'm presuming part of the abuse is about causing hurt to the woman through the proxy of her child and the other part is your standard Radfem 'all men are evil rapists'.

I've seen this indifference play out again and again in children suffering physical and emotional abuse: the women are more concerned with getting back to the office and checking facebook than having to act of protecting a child from a junkie parents. There is only so much money.

And yes, like England, the system has tight controls over who has access to this kind of knowledge. As such, if my identity is revealed, I could go to jail for publicly-speaking about this.

England: you're speaking about a country that is discussing criminalising any form of 'Islamic Blasphemy', where family court processes are often closed to the public, and where a foreign tourist can have a baby removed from her body due to her mental state.

There is nothing to be done. There's not point even being outraged. This is where progressive attitudes eventually lead: socialist government control. I have had to accept through major soul-searching and battlign depression that there are some levels of control and evil the individual is powerless against, but I don't have to stay in this cesspool of a country or care about its fate either.

If you watch my posts over the last year, my outlook has gotten much darker and I've lost a large amount of interest in gaming women. This is why.

Quintus: this was why I mentioned knowledge I didn't want to burden you with in relation to depression a while back.

Guys, I shouldn't have talked about this. Let it slide. Every avenue was exhausted at the time. I was just pissed off and fed up with guys who aren't deep enough into the system to know how rotten it is brushing off our concerns as 'apocalyptic'.

I'm about a week away from moving to Europe. The situation is no longer my concern. There's happiness out there, but it's not in a progressive society.

Witness the apostasy of the 21st Century before our very eyes.

On the bright side, now the poofs and carpet munchers have a real home, send 'em all to Ireland.

Apostacy is the problem huh? Well if people want to live under an iron-fisted theocracy, they need only convert to Islam and go live in Saudi. There they still stone women to death for adultery, execute men from homosexuality, and even still crucify people. Sounds wonderful.

The solution to freezing in Arctic waters is not to jump in a Volcano.

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

The powers that be will leverage the fact that this was the first time in history that the redefinition of marriage was brought about by popular will - in Roman Catholic Ireland of all places.

This will leave the Calvinist and Anglican British remnant in Northern Ireland under pressure to follow suit (this was where a Christian business was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake despite gay marriage not being recognised in NI).

Hitherto, it was quite embarrassing for the monied cosmopolitan and metropolitan élites of the financial democracies that the redefinition was foisted upon the masses.

The media pressure on the minds of Irish people must have been intense.

The so-called libertarians need to take their heads out of the sand. This was never about what 'consenting adults do in private'. If it was, the deeds of circa 4% would be highly irrelevant in countries that claim to be democracies.

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:01 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

So... you mean you will actually be moving to Saudi?

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:01 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

So... you mean you will actually be moving to Saudi?

So...you think gay "marriage" is a good thing? There must be some reason why you don't like what I've written. If you're pro-gay, that's your thing. I'm not.

delete

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:43 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:01 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

So... you mean you will actually be moving to Saudi?

So...you think gay "marriage" is a good thing? There must be some reason why you don't like what I've written. If you're pro-gay, that's your thing. I'm not.

Are you actually reading anything I've written?

Quote: (05-23-2015 03:37 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

While not ideal, a fascist theocracy is at least a stable and proven form of government, unlike libertarianism, which exists nowhere because it is incapable of sustaining and defending itself. When your philosophy of government can be distilled to, "I don't give a shit about anything that happens to anyone except me," your nation isn't going to last very long.

Fascist theocracies, i.e. undemocratic governments that cloak themselves in religion to legitimize their oppression of the population and their favoring of the 0.001%, are in actuality neither stable nor proven.

Eventually people get tired of being lied to and robbed on a daily basis, and Dear Leader ends up swinging from a lamp post.

You also, perhaps deliberately, mischaracterize my views on government. I am not a pure libertarian. I agree with some elements of libertarian philosophy, but I also appreciate the benefits associated with certain functions and responsibilities of a well regulated state. As Hobbes correctly pointed out, life in a state of nature is nasty, mean, brutish, and short.

It is also not exactly true that "I don't give a shit about anything that happens to anyone but me."

It would be much more accurate to say, "I, as a free individual, care most about what happens to me, and have no desire to interfere unnecessarily in the lives of others, as the unfettered freedom to enjoy one's own liberty without undue restraint is one of the central benefits of the modern nation state."

Quote: (05-24-2015 07:57 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:43 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:01 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

So... you mean you will actually be moving to Saudi?

So...you think gay "marriage" is a good thing? There must be some reason why you don't like what I've written. If you're pro-gay, that's your thing. I'm not.

Are you actually reading anything I've written?

I don't care about what you've written to be honest. Trying to project whatever you're trying to project doesn't interest me. I have no use for gays, neither does the neomascility movement.

As far as your attempt in tying to equate Islam with radical homosexuality goes - let them kill each other off; the world would be a better place.

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:18 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

This will leave the Calvinist and Anglican British remnant in Northern Ireland under pressure to follow suit (this was where a Christian business was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake despite gay marriage not being recognised in NI).

The odds of gay marriage being legalised in the North of Ireland while Unionism rules the roost are virtually nil.

They may be under pressure certainly, but believe me they won't give two shits, it'll matter little to them.

Quote: (05-24-2015 08:16 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

I don't care about what you've written to be honest. Trying to project whatever you're trying to project doesn't interest me.

I'm satisfied with this response. You have your opinion, and I'll be right.

Quote: (05-24-2015 08:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 08:16 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

I don't care about what you've written to be honest. Trying to project whatever you're trying to project doesn't interest me.

I'm satisfied with this response. You have your opinion, and I'll be right.

Do you like talking to yourself?

No I'd rather have a debate. But a debate requires the two parties to listen to each others points, and then rebut logically. If they don't, then it's like one guy 'debating' with a radio. If you want to have a monologue then a blog is better suited than a forum.

Paddy and Murphy walk into a bar...

Hand in hand

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:43 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:01 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Radical problems often require radical solutions.

So... you mean you will actually be moving to Saudi?

So...you think gay "marriage" is a good thing? There must be some reason why you don't like what I've written. If you're pro-gay, that's your thing. I'm not.

You will be stepping ahead and claiming he loves homosexuals next the way you're interpreting his point of view.

He doesn't like this development, doesn't agree queers should be in the mainstream but at the same time he doesn't want to see them executed for fucking members of the same sex.

That isn't a pro gay attitude, its something we call basic humanity. You're actually serious all gays and lesbians should be executed or at the least persecuted for their lifestyles?

Regimes which undertake such behaviour are nothing but psychotic, irrational, bigoted and as history would show, absolute failures.

Gays did not deal marriage a deathblow, the courts and government did.

I personally couldn't care less about gay marriage or marriage in general, it doesn't affect me in the least. I am not a believer in it but I won't go up to someone and say they're barred from it on grounds such as religion.

Marriage was never about religion from my understanding but a means for one spouse to support another and/or for love.

Quote:Quote:

There are no norms of God, because God exists only in your imagination.

Children don't need a delusional parent who wants someone else to do their job for them.

They need a man who provides firm, individual guidance and takes care of his own business.

With all due respect, Volando, you're out of your league debating scorpion and Bosch on this issue with your atheism 101 talking points, and because of that, you're dialing up the aggression to compensate, but this will inevitably need to another suspension for you.