The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
I pity you for how thoroughly you've been enslaved by your vice. If you want to have my help in overcoming your porn addiction, just contact me. Until then, I'll pray for you.
The Political Problem of Pornography
- Thread starter The Name of Love
- Start date
LOL, sure.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
I'm serious. Please see me if you need help with your porn addiction. Hope you reconsider.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Opposing your position does not necessitate someone having an addiction to porn. You're doing that 'baseless namecalling' and 'presumption of motives' thing you were complaining about moments ago.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Gold Ranger said he opposes me because my political policies would inconvenience his daily habits. How am I presuming his motives when he actually told me his motives?
By contrast, you all know what my motives are because I posted them in the first post. So saying that I have some other motive is implicitly accusing me of lying.
Edit: Also, you are strawmanning what I'm saying, by the way. I never said anyone else here was a porn addict beside Gold Ranger.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Because any read of his statements with even the barest knowledge of liberal worldview (which you've already shown a recognition of--if not an acceptance) doesn't bear out your presentation?
This is not 'inconveniences my daily habits'--as belied by the last sentence and the lack of mention of daily habits you seemed to have seen present (here or elsewhere). As further expanded upon:
This is not 'inconveniences my daily habits'. It's pretty solidly centered upon a liberal skepticism of government activity remaining within the realm initially presented for it.
You can say that concern is a misrepresentation or strawman of your position because your particular policy proscriptions would definitely never be misused in the ways he's expressed concern about, or once again raise your rejection of that entire liberal framework, but those would be distinct complaints.
Never said you did, I meant my point solely as a criticism of your back-and-forth with him.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
You and I interpreted what he said differently, @prinCZess. Let's ask the man himself then.
@GoldRanger, are you against my politics because it would prevent you from partaking in pornography, thus inconveniencing you, or is your criticism born out of a liberal skepticism of government power? Please answer honestly.
@GoldRanger, are you against my politics because it would prevent you from partaking in pornography, thus inconveniencing you, or is your criticism born out of a liberal skepticism of government power? Please answer honestly.
@The Name of Love
This.
Also, if I had an addiction of any kind, whether to porn or otherwise, and if I thought it's an issue that has harmful consequences, which is not a trivial conclusion to make (certainly in regards to porn), I would obviously go to a certified professional rather than a religious wacko on the internet. The very idea is hillarious!
Hey, @The Name of Love , if you ever have a crisis of faith you can always talk to me, I'll be happy to explain to you what the world really looks like. In the meanwhile, I'll be reading Dawkins for you.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Alright then, I apologize. Your opposition to my politics is due mainly to liberal skepticism of government rather than solely your sexual fetishes. I suggest, however, that you not make the conversation about yourself if you don't want people getting the wrong idea. "It will inconvenience me" is perhaps the worst reason for opposing my preferred policies.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
again, I'd like to point out just how much power the federal government has assumed based on "interstate commerce". The idea that the expanding bureaucracy won't expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy is absurd.
What if I do have a sexual fetish? I don't see any reason to be ashamed of any such thing, nor do I see why resisting your authoritarian impositions on that basis is a bad thing.
I will not be discussing my sex life in detail. I WILL say that I do not smoke weed or any other drug (I did use to smoke tobacco, but I've quit a while ago), yet I completely support legalization of recreational drugs.
It may be a difficult concept to grasp to an authoritarian mind, but whether I personally have a stake in something or whether I approve of a certain behavior is irrelevant, I will respect the individual's ability to choose what and how to consume without a nanny state looking over their shoulder.
Well, that escalated quickly. I think there are some Leftist traits that I left out of that list:
- Aggressive judgementalism - dismissing anyone who argues against them as evil.
- Double standards - demanding that others follow a standard that they don't apply to themselves. Calling me a "child of Satan"? Charity much?
- Rejecting previous real-life examples of their sort of policies being put into practice on arbitrary grounds.
- Assuming that every opponent is the same.
- Treating the discussion as if it's all about themselves, personally.
Cherico's people have some institutional memory of what life under "Catholic government" was like for them. As do we Protestants.
No, we are not letting you have power again.
I read somewhere that the USA was originally supposed to be like that. Each state was free to have it's own official religion if it wanted, the "no establishing a religion" thing in the First Amendment was in regard to the Federal level of government.
Only later on was it all reinterpreted into a more "one size fits all" system.
Pretty much everything else you've said in this thread disagrees with this.
It most certainly would. You've already had this explained to you by more than one poster who have been much more polite and articulate than I have been, and your response to all of them has essentially been that you're okay with that.
Nah, I'm just using it as an example of you claiming something after you've already said some stuff which indicated you feel the opposite.
Are you mad because I called you a theocrat? Immediately after complaining that another poster is calling you names.
D
Deleted member
Guest
@Captain X I do believe that a ban of the time The Name of Love is advocating could be implemented with a substantially smaller government than the one we have now, because it would depend on concerned citizens to initiate prosecutions, which is originally how the 1857 Obscene Publications Act in the UK functioned. So let's try to remember just how radically different the world was in an age when society was healthy and government was limited. The way even criminal cases were initiated could be quite different before the bureaucratized 20th century.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
@Scottty I called you a child of Satan because you are uncharitable to me and lie about myself and my faith. I will say no more to you. Your concerns no longer matter.
@Captain X You and Scotty called me names first. Am I not allowed to reciprocate considering this is no longer a real discussion but a shouting match where the two of you screech like children whose parents have threatened to take away their toys. I told you over and over that I don’t take kindly to people saying things like that to me. But since you made this about my character rather than my arguments, I decide to include your characters into it too.
Since neither of you seem to care about lying about me or calling me names, yet seem to hate being called names in return, I’m going to block you. Please, go away.
@Captain X You and Scotty called me names first. Am I not allowed to reciprocate considering this is no longer a real discussion but a shouting match where the two of you screech like children whose parents have threatened to take away their toys. I told you over and over that I don’t take kindly to people saying things like that to me. But since you made this about my character rather than my arguments, I decide to include your characters into it too.
Since neither of you seem to care about lying about me or calling me names, yet seem to hate being called names in return, I’m going to block you. Please, go away.
Okay, but society is no longer like that. Much like communism, what he is advocating would require a massive, intrusive government to work. It would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights. I cannot get more clear about this point. What he is proposing is a theocracy, and the only way it would be "limited" is that it wouldn't effect busybodies like himself.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I think it's very plain that his overall objective is to make society work that way again...