Jun 20, 2008
Yankee Yahoo Profile
The famous last words of a fanatic of any culture. My beliefs are well founded!!!! Defensive much? Oh, so education is everlasting? So those that got a PhD in 1940 on Eugenics, they still know what they are talking about? So your knowledge is absolute, for all eternity? Wow!!!!!! Sorry, but you just proved that you are not always learning, and indeed, because of your Masters degree, no longer feel compelled to learn, or you would have never mentioned it. Ah, the folly of having titles of nobility. The birthright mentality of conservatism! (Nov 4, 2014 | post #821)
I read it when I was 15. I'm 40 now. Forgive me if I don't remember everything from the hundreds of books I've read. I do remember reading about Plato around the same time, or was it Sacrates? So what? 1. Either you're trying to sound more intelligent than you actually are even menting Nietzsche. 2. Or you admire the idiot (oh, yes, I actually have little respect for his intellect, not nearly as smart as people make him out to be) and use him all the time in your world view. Which is it? Take my pick of what? I already know there are multiple theories ABOUT what is moral or not. That is not the point I made. That morals exist, and must exist first, before society can form, before laws can be made, or before government can be justified is the point. Even the very origin of the word "morals" is shrouded in prehistoric mystery. (Nov 4, 2014 | post #820)
LOL! That was my point. If you ONLY agree with those that have the same viewpoint ... you cannot claim to have an open mind. For example, as a Christian, I can still agree with non-Christians about a wide range of topics. I can agree with libertarians about economics, but disagree about social ideas. I can agree with socialists in that society has some basic rights to control the individual, but not that they can best control the economy itself. I don't seek to agree with the same points of view. That is the sign of a weak mind. (Nov 4, 2014 | post #819)
Bingo! Then there is no equality, except under the law. And now ... the emotionalism ... and typical logical failure common to irrational minds. (Nov 4, 2014 | post #818)
LOL! Not having social obligations IS anarchy. Society cannot function without them. The rest of paragraph does not follow. The very word "marriage " means State of Motherhood. Marriage has always been, and always will be, related to forming families. That's what the concept means ... it has nothing to do with one's interest, but the interest of society. That's why there is concubinage and whores for those that don't want families. It is your argument that is weak in its challenge of known facts. I need no argument, I'm simply refuting very easily the existence of any concept known as "gay marriage." No, the law, and the USC, is irrelevant to marriage and the greater good of humanity, morals, philosophy, and things that matter. The law and the USC exist to SERVE higher purposes and pursuits. It is not a pursuit itself. The Supreme Court that also defended slavery? Once again, you can never use SCOTUS in any argument when their sole purpose if to resolve disputes which change over time. Wrong on all counts, as usual. Nice attempt at trying to dominate the discussion, though. No, not really. (Nov 4, 2014 | post #817)
Careful ... when you agree with only those that agree with you, you won't be able to learn anything new, or have an open mind. ;) (Nov 2, 2014 | post #809)
No legal limits, society CREATES all laws, and therefore, is limited only by nature, not the laws it creates when it has the power to revoke and reshape the law. Simple logic. No, it hasn't. There is not a single authoritative philosophy on earth that demonstrates marriage as a right. THe State, and the Law, are subservient to philosophy and moral authority who are the experts on such matters. There are no philosopher kings any longer. I also do not argue within the confines of any nation ... do try to pay attention. Marriage is a human construct, not a legal or national one. The law and nations are creations like marriage, all come from society. I have not shared my beliefs, only facts. And, only the government is forbidden to discriminate ... not society, not individuals. We choose whom we wish to associate with, ergo, discrimination is a basic human right for everyone BUT the government. Marriage in every language and every culture has everything to do with procreation. The concept of a procreative union is its basic tenant. Concubinage is the word for sexual union. Grow your lexicon and fight ignorance! No, seeking to redefine marriage to secure racists beliefs, is no different than redefining marriage to have nothing to do with procreation ... as you are clearly doing. Minorities, racists or gay, don't get to impose their selfish and insane beliefs on others. Wrong on all counts. And not even a very good try. :( (Nov 2, 2014 | post #808)
It is my right to try and figure you out, and understand the origins of your unfounded beliefs. Only in this way can we convince one another to see reality and obtain scientific facts. Illogical thinking, as you demonstrate, are usually results of preconceived assumptions from the past. Are you saying you have no preconceived ideas you learned, but never questioned? (Nov 2, 2014 | post #807)
Sorry. Social obligations is what makes society possible, they do decide. Always have, always will. Once again, no one said anything about men deciding anything. The actual FACTS based on logic and reason is that, for there to be procreative equality, both sexes must have equal say. So, you don't get to claim to defend equality with your hypocrisy. American law does not trump nature or sociological science, ergo, I don't argue based on laws, which themselves can change anyway. Time is a logical fallacy ... the 21st Century is irrelevant to discussion about social constructs that evolved over many thousands of years. No, there is no right to marry, or right to work ... both imply the defense of slavery and making other people satisfy your "rights. " Who is must be forced to provide a job? I have pointed out ONLY facts, as stated above. Again, you are basing your whole idea of "rights" and on YOUR ideals. THey are not universal ideals, now do you have the right to impose them on others, as you currently are. (Nov 2, 2014 | post #806)
Oh, so you are my age. But I bet your parents were hippies, yes? Come on, be honest! Sorry, society had the right and the duty to restrict marriage. Always has, always will. Has nothing to do with equal rights, because joining groups is about surrounding rights in the first place. Just the facts. A very different view on what constitutes life from whom? Society, like with men, also gets to set social obligations for women. You may personally be against abortion, but to advocate for it's continued existence violates the rights of men and goes against equality. Procreative equality would absolutely mean both sexes MUST have equal say over the life and death of their offspring ... not just one sex? Don't like that? Then condemn abortion to both sexes, problem solved, and full equality satisfied. There is no right to marry, just as there is no right to work for Microsoft. Joining into ANY organization, marriage or government, oikos or doma, family or union, cannot be definiton be a right. A right to be left alone, not a right to force others to include you, is the only logical rights. I am entitled to be beliefs. But I've not shared any. I'm just pointing out facts. Shall I list them yet again? 1. The concept of a procreative union always has its own word. The concept of a sexual union is a different word. Marriage, and concubinage. Use the correct wording and stop being uneducated and barbaric. 2. What you really want is caregiver rights, or the right to inherit social benefits like SS, or make essential decisions for another. This was reserved for procreative unions for the essential service of bringing new humans into society. It was not for all caregivers, such as sons and daughters who live with, and take care of their parents, who do not inherit SS. Ergo, you are demanding you have a right to something many others do not. Marriage is a parent's union, a special class, a protected class ... much like how minorities claim to be a protected class now. But what you are supporting is the destruction of one protected class and the promotion of your own. 3. Redefining marriage as something is it not is the same crime as the racist South did with miscegeny laws. Neither gays, nor racists, should ever be allowed to redefine marriage for their own selfish desires. Of course, we reject anyone trying to redefine marriage for any reason. Evolution defines it ... not minorities. (Nov 1, 2014 | post #802)
What is there to explain, exactly? Unless there is a standard of right and wrong (morals) then how can there be rights? Or laws? Or any kind of social structure whatsoever? Sociology 101, the shamans and priests always came before the chieftains and kings. Just stating basic facts, nothing more. Got questions? Ask them. And what does Nietzsche have to do with it? He favored the state run by intellectuals being the moral authority, did he not? A form of Greek aristocracy spelled out by Plato, his ideal for an educated intellectual elite ruling all. Don't tell me you favor that! Oh boy .... (Nov 1, 2014 | post #801)
Oh, but why not keep this going, NorCal Hippie? Equal Rights for All No Less, No More .... Except for babies. The old The sick The weak Or anyone with a different set of morals and beliefs not your own. Got it! LOL! I guess you believe your beliefs in "equality " are so absolute that you've never questioned that they may not have any merit in the first place. The narrow-minded hippie. A strange oxymoron! (Nov 1, 2014 | post #798)
Excellent question. Which suggests that we have laws based on some potentially pretty silly morals, depending on whether they are absolute, relative, or grounded in culture. Of course nations get involved. So the Aztecs have laws allowing human sacrifice. And now gays have laws forcing people to accept their "marriages. " And the racists Southerners once redefined marriage for racial purposes. So why do we keep the crazies from inventing bogus morals and creating screwed up laws? Any suggestions? (Nov 1, 2014 | post #796)
I DON'T believe...." Enough said. So quit forcing your beliefs on us, which was the origin point. Children cannot survive on their own ... they die quite quickly when left unattended. No difference whatsoever between the unborn on the umbilical cord, or the born on the breast. Comments like yours is why I have little respect for you. If you defend something, you advocate for it. It is society's place to tell us what to do ... NO ONE HAS EVER ARGUED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAD THE PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO. Either you continually make this comment because you are truly stupid, or deliberately being dishonest. Which is it? So if a baby is not entitled to the same rights ... then there is no equality of rights, and you just argued AGAINST gay marriage. LOL! Brilliant! Hypocrisy backfiring on you beautifully! I put you down because of your comments. But you have not refuted a single fact I have pointed out, so your opinion of me being stupid is baseless, while my opinion of your stupidity is based on sound logic and reason. Have a great day. :) (Nov 1, 2014 | post #794)
Q & A with Yankee Yahoo
Fear is the Mind-Killer
Cibola National Park
Red chili, and Satellite Coffee.
I Belong To:
God, Jesus, then my wife.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm doing something productive.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I've probably read yours.
I'm Listening To:
Song of Ice and Fire
Read This Book:
Tradegy and Hope by Carroll Quigley.
Being with family, talking politics and history with my wife, teaching my kids, reading, writing, making love to my wife, though not in that order.
On My Mind:
My wife, still obsessed with her after 12 years!
Blog / Website / Homepage:
I don't do blogs.
I Believe In:
A Creator, free will, universal morality, liberal democracy, and social evolution away from the dependency on archaic forms of government.
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC