Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

lemonjelly

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have seen some dodgy manga stuff, I can't see why even though it disturbs me it is classed as !!!!!!. Some of it is still openly on sale in bookshops, the characters are stylised kids with adult body features not real.
My BDSM activities are often illegal to photograph as the law stands now. Even though done between consenting adults. (I am the sub BTW).

Then shut up & don't answer back. You skinny little worm!;)

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Then shut up & don't answer back. You skinny little worm!;)

you're just too sweet to Top, lj.

Masomnia

I suppose one might argue that to look at indecent images of children fuels a demand, which some pervert somewhere will deem it necessary to supply. To create that demand makes you an accessary to the abuse.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

you're just too sweet to Top, lj.

I can be angry!

I can Grrrr to your purrrr;)

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Absolutely. That is why I do not consider myself an ideologue. Sadly, a lot of right-libertarians seem to be quite like that.

The reason it does not feel right is because there are wider implications of allowing such behaviour. Although we are dealing with an extreme example of bad behaviour, a lot of other behaviour which has no immediately obvious ill effects to others in fact does if people would only think about it enough.

I agree entirely. Utilitarians 1 Libertarians 0.

Generali

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Utilitarians 1 Libertarians 0.

Not really, you just happen to agree with a statement.

Try reading 'The Road to Serfdom' and you might change your views.

tomterm8

Degenerate wrote: »

Most people who take this line are completely ignorant of what "intelligent design" is all about.

The theory starts by conceding all the proven science on evolution. ID proponents acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old, and than man evolved through a line going back through primates, to the simplest early life forms. The Darwinian view attributes all these changes to purely random mutations, with those that present advantages winning through (natural selection). ID proponents reject the notion that it is 100% random. To support their view they point to biological structures that they say are too complicated to have arisen randomly in one step, and that have no functional intermediate steps that would have presented evolutionary advantage.

They do make rather bold claims of a scientific basis for their theory, when clearly it is a religiously motivated attempt to squeeze the hand of God (or a "designer") into this area of perceived reasonable doubt. But then, it could be said the Darwinian view is an article of faith for the atheist perspective too - the structures the ID folks point to are genuinely hard to account for, and it's hard to see how it can ever be conclusively proven either way without a time machine to go back and examine the cellular structure of the earliest life on Earth.

Rather than "pure idiocy", the people behind ID are pretty clever and have successfully exposed those parts of Darwin's theories that are weaker and/or unprovable. This is probably why they attract such hostility and disinformation from opponents. I'd rather people try to reconcile their faith with the proven science than bury their heads in the sand and pretend the earth is 6000 years old. I certainly wouldn't want to see ID taught in schools as scientific fact, but I could see it being presented in faith schools as one perspective on how God might fit into the whole evolution thing.

Frankly, Degenerate, I find the entire question both dishonest and pure idiocy. Describing Intelligent Design in the context of science as a theory is dishonest; it comes down the definition of theory. At best Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. In order for something to be described as a theory, it must have been tested in very many repeatable scientific experiments, where all alternative hypothesis have been disproved. Very few things reach the height of "theory".

Can you tell me a single scientific experiment that has been offered in order to disprove the hypothesis of God ? I don't know of one.

In short, it doesn't fall into science, it can't be tested, it is not a theory, and to teach it as science is pure idiocy and dishonest. If they can come up with actual experiments to disprove their intelligent designor, I'll start listening. Until that point, I'll put it into the wibble wobble category of nonsence that doesn't, in any way, expand our knowledge of the universe.

michaels

Another good argument for the Libertarians:

treliac

lemonjelly wrote: »

I see the point you make generali. Problem is, we're social creatures, not a collection of individuals. As a society, almost everything we do will impact on others in one way or another.

Libertarianism is (imo) far too simplistic & narrow minded in viewing who we are & what we do.

You sum up my feelings lj (as you usually do, of course )

Sir_Humphrey

"It's your right as an American."