Indeed, my goal is to make society more aligned to my ideas.I think it's very plain that his overall objective is to make society work that way again...
This is a direct quote:Also, as I recall from that old discussion, he doesn't really oppose medical treatment - that was an over-literalist reading of something he said.
He had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, and I pressured him to do so, but he didn't; this is his final word on the morality of seeking medical treatment.You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death. If you were to violate your body, God's temple, to stay alive, that would be immoral.
Wait there may be a misunderstanding here. TNoL might be saying that saving your life doesn’t morally justify any act. Not that live saving acts arent allowed. He may believe that you can do some things to save your life, but you can’t do anything to save your life.This is a direct quote:
He had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, and I pressured him to do so, but he didn't; this is his final word on the morality of seeking medical treatment.
The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.
Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.Wait there may be a misunderstanding here. TNoL might be saying that saving your life doesn’t morally justify any act. Not that live saving acts arent allowed. He may believe that you can do some things to save your life, but you can’t do anything to save your life.
This is probably a more reasonable interpretation off his statement, though he could clarify.
I think it’s within the context of opposing transhumanism. Which, personally, as a transhuman cyborg, I can’t agree with.
We need a transhumanism thread to discuss the topic. I’m not sure if there is a clear delineation from where medical treatment ends and transhumanism begins.Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.
Perhaps, but you cannot deny that's a pretty damning statement without further clarification. Although at this point, he has long since blocked me, so it's not like I can make that request anymore.
@ShieldWife, don't bother. Terthna has been correct numerous times about this. I've told him many times that some acts are intrinsically immoral and cannot be used for any end, including the good of saving a life. But he has repeatedly propped the strawman he's widely proclaiming. I've ceased engaging with him since then.
I'd note, despite my own disagreement with his desired actions and somewhat like those 'regressive leftists' who'd condemn pornography by government action in the name of protecting people/society from its influence, that @The Name of Love has a point on its capacity to harm individuals. We can contest the aggregate effects, and there seem to be conflicting studies attempting to do just that, but I don't think anyone can deny that like gambling or alcohol or arguing on the internet ( ) or virtually any other 'vice' activity it's possible for people to indulge too heavily in it and bring consequences on themselves because of it--either because they've outright wasted money on fulfilling that vice or because it's caused issues in their real-world relationships with other people (not necessarily at the 'second-order' level of impacting attitudes on women or such, but displeased a significant other who disapproves of one going outside the relationship in such a way for release).The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.
You call that a clarification? He is literally promoting a form of anti-medicalism, there is no other way to interpret that! I cannot believe you're trying to defend someone like him. Actually I can; I just think you're incredibly misguided in doing so.He's already made that clarification, though I believe he meant to say "corrected" from context. Please consider the matter closed; he is not promoting some kind of anti-medicalism, that would be against Catholic teaching and doctrine.
you mean like Coffee? Like, if we are going to say "it's like a drug and therefore bad" surely the single most consumed neurological drug counts. For that matter so does Tea and Chocolate... Perhaps we should take this a step further and ban capsaicin in food, it has MASSIVE potential for ill effects including contributing to ulcer formation. (By the way, Capsaicin is the scientific name for the chemical responsible for the taste of "spicy")given how it's like a drug
...by definition you are the third, you are being a busybody over morals, the second is, I suppose, technically arguable depending on how you actually want to ban porn... but this thread is about doing it with Government and making the Government do more is, broadly, authoritarian, the first is a misunderstanding/representation on your part, they are pointing out ways you are LIKE the parts of the left people ran here to get away from.being a leftist, an authoritarian, a moral busybody
I'd trust a government in charge of maybe ~200k people who were largely in agreement to do this... anything much past that and I think government is the clumsiest, least responsive, worst possible option, for anything that isn't modern war.no government can be trust to ever deal with this problem
you mean like Coffee? Like, if we are going to say "it's like a drug and therefore bad" surely the single most consumed neurological drug counts. For that matter so does Tea and Chocolate... Perhaps we should take this a step further and ban capsaicin in food, it has MASSIVE potential for ill effects including contributing to ulcer formation. (By the way, Capsaicin is the scientific name for the chemical responsible for the taste of "spicy")
...by definition you are the third, you are being a busybody over morals, the second is, I suppose, technically arguable depending on how you actually want to ban porn... but this thread is about doing it with Government and making the Government do more is, broadly, authoritarian, the first is a misunderstanding/representation on your part, they are pointing out ways you are LIKE the parts of the left people ran here to get away from.
I'd trust a government in charge of maybe ~200k people who were largely in agreement to do this... anything much past that and I think government is the clumsiest, least responsive, worst possible option, for anything that isn't modern war.
Is everything the government does "a step in the direction of a police state"? It just seems like confused thinking.Just because someone wants to ban pornography doesn’t necessarily mean that they are an authoritarian or that they want a police state. Then again, it’s a step in that direction. It depends on how it would be banned and what else the person wants banned.
Ideally, homosexuality, transgender surgery, cross-dressing, contraceptives, divorce, and hard drugs would all be prohibited at the local and state level. I believe the federal government ought not concern itself with such things, however. And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.Speaking of which, Name of Love, I know that you have also advocated for homosexuality to be outlawed along with “transgenderism” and I believe various non-procreative sexual acts between heterosexuals. I assume this includes sexual toys too. You would also outlaw contraceptives and divorce and maintain or step up the war on drugs? Would erotic literature be included in the pornography ban?
Is there an actual definition of "authoritarian police state" or is it just a magical word used to describe government policies you don't like.Now we’re starting to get more into the realm of authoritarian police state.
Well, anything that a government does is at the point of a gun. Including providing services which it gains through taxation. That doesn’t mean that there should be no government at all, but that we should be a bit reluctant to use government power to achieve our ends. When I think of a law and whether or not it should be passed, I consider whether or not a need justifies the use of violence.Is everything the government does "a step in the direction of a police state"? It just seems like confused thinking.
So this what happens when one wants to legislate morality. It isn’t just pornography that gets banned, the bans start to add up and these are bans that would have an impact in the lives of most Americans. These are laws that would see this very forum get shut down and many of its members imprisoned.Ideally, homosexuality, transgender surgery, cross-dressing, contraceptives, divorce, and hard drugs would all be prohibited at the local and state level. I believe the federal government ought not concern itself with such things, however. And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.
Well, I’m sure that we could look up what authoritarian means and what police state means and see if they apply. I’m inclined to say that if a typical person going about their everyday activities is in danger of being arrested, then it’s probably a police state. Heavy involvement of the government in people’s private lives seems to be that as well. It’s all a matter of degrees though, with each encroachments on rights another mark in the authoritarian police state column.Is there an actual definition of "authoritarian police state" or is it just a magical word used to describe government policies you don't like.
Not necessarily. It presumes that good intentions or even usages by an authority in the present do not save a policy from being put into practice in the future by flawed and imperfect men--or actively exploited by bad actors to serve their own desires and ends. One need not be a Gadsden flag waving libertarian to recognize the power and capacity government--and specifically nefarious or simply sinful actors within that government--has to harm the people underneath it because it possesses the bureaucratic strictures and license to do so.Should it adopt a permissive attitude, or should it do something to curb this behavior. @prinCZess, my main problem is that so many people on this server just assume no government can be trust to ever deal with this problem. I've stated many times before that this assumes libertarianism is true
Got into it a bit above I suppose, but while I can grant your ends as virtuous or, at least, motivated by such--I'd personally see what can be labeled 'pornography' as something expressive in humanity and its creation an artistic act that can merely be (and may commonly be, because the 'industry' of it is a sewer) subverted for base money-making and exploitation to serve that end. The means you're looking for to reach those ends present some of the same problems as the end-state where it's around--even absent argument over what qualifies as porn and will be gone after and what doesn't.I'd like to know, @prinCZess, where exactly you stand on this? What, exactly, is your disagreement with me? Do you not think that the problems I outlined are problems? Or do you think that there's a better way to solve them?