That sounds familiar. :pJeppan wrote:Depending on the day really but I guess agnostic would be a just label. I am anti-clergy though and I am not part of any church (any longer) as so far I have not found that suit me both as a believer and a sentient person.?Helios wrote: Watch me make assumptions about Jeppan.
He's an atheist or agnostic. Am I right? Jeppan, feel like chiming in?
Yeah, I was raised a Christian at one point and then through some philosophical realizations in which I became an atheist. Hopefully admitting to being a Christian at one point won't open the flood gates of “Haha, biased lying mutherf****r! CAUGHT YOU!” Calling people out for there mistakes is the standard in this community, if you don't mind me saying. If that's untrue well, hell maybe it is. Irregardless of my past, I have a potent knowledge of the bible. I would suggest reading it. (really good book by the way, no pun intended. Get it? Good book? Meh, I thought it was funny.)
However, instead of acting out against my past or religion I choose to accept other people's beliefs with a grain of salt. It's all about moderation with me and you cannot prove your argument by madcap rants. (lol, the hypocrisy.) - But, you cannot convince me otherwise of overtly evil acts and say they're good or that they're shady when they are clearly not.
This issue on equal rights just happens to be clear cut issue, if not morally ambiguous.
I believe Mikyala deserves equal rights under the law but as a republican I can't speak for everyone and tell them what to do. Doing so would be the reverse of democracy and will eventually lead to a form of dictatorship of free thought. In other words Danubus, I'm okay with you being a Christian and anti-trans gender. Mikayla, your lifestyle is morally ambiguous to me in the sense that, as a potential mental disease it can be considered morally good. You may argue with me and explain it like you did in IRC, make fun of me, label me a Homophobe, whatever. You attempted to explain your sexual nature in IRC and it sounded like absolute lunacy the way you defended your position. It was like a donkey attempting a conversation with a human. (You were the donkey in this case, and it was one of the few times I actually found you to be completely, incompetently, ineloquent. So thats saying a quite a bit.)
Now back to my main point. - You deserve equal rights like all others, but you cannot leave it at that. Because you are pushing an agenda. It's the very reason you still argue with me now. You instead attempt to infuse your beliefs with my own in an effort to justify your position. It just wont work.
I figured you weren't threatened but I don't understand why you didn't respond this way originally. . . I'm glad you can understand the philosophical nature of the question because that is what it boils down too, philosophical ideology. Hence why religion conflicts with it so vastly in my opinion.One can argue that it's not taking advantage of anyone and the decision is made between to consenting adults, yes?You know I'm not strung up on kiddie sex and I just proved a point. You feel threatened. I understand.
Threatened? Not really. Mad as hell for people taking advantage of children for their own twisted needs? You bet. I can understand the philosophical nature of the question, that it is one sexual preference over another but that does not make it one bit less wrong in practice.
Pedophilia in my opinion is very wrong. Hence my belief in capital punishment for pedophilia. Used to live next to a pedophile in upper Michigan, creepy bugger fugly mutha, that. - But I'm getting off track here.
As far as I see it there is no good and evil, it is all about who is looking. Then of course there are people who can arguably be called evil but they all have been on the losers side of a conflict so it is hard to tell really. As general rule I do not believe in that kind of over-simplification, it is for Hollywood Movies, and not for real life.I'm glad you agree morals are not timeless. But do you consider good and evil to be timeless?
Now Japanese, I'm not advocating state-sponsored discrimination. I'm advocating independent discrimination. I understand the morality behind it, and I'm not arguing this to defend holier then thou art Danubus. My question is, do you understand the morality behind it?
Yes, not that I would advocate any kind of discrimination but if I had to chose I would prefer the state to treat everyone equal and go from there. Maybe peoples views would change with new legislation as well?
They wont. The world is too diversified. Instead we should acknowledge this diversity instead of treating everyone “equal.” Treating everyone equal to the point where it becomes flawed serves no purpose. I'm not going to ignore undocumented illegal immigrants crossing our borders and bringing with them diseases as well as unknown criminal records that could be potentially damaging to health care and public safety and group them into the same pile as those that come here under legal means or as political refugees from war torn countries. Such as the Hmong that fled here to Minnesota. You can do a Google search on that. One goes undocumented and raises concerns despite the fact that they may also be fleeing oppressive governments or other financial reasons. i.e. Sending our money back to their country. One is applying for citizenship and is requesting amnesty. The other is potentially damaging our economic system. Now I know how you stand on illegal immigration. It's the product of the “psychotic” far right in Sweden. Know that what is the case for you, isn't necessarily the same case for us. We're a bigger country with a vast amounts of undocumented aliens here. You're roughly the size of well, California. Easier to manage. Look at us. We cant even get people to agree to one thing, that's how fucking abnormally diverse we are. It's a problem, we can't be equal. We don't know their criminal record and this country is just too big to bother finding them all through current flawed processes. I'm all for immigration. Come on over here everyone, it's a great place to live. It'sa invite you can all bunk with me.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong there Japan. If you mean the state has no right treating some more equal then others you're right. However, we both know you meant individuals. I'm afraid equality doesn't exist, not until it's eliminated through abstract blind liberalism, which you seem to whole heartily practice, or eliminated through conservative moral rights, which, I'm afraid to say, doesn't include our friend Danubus at all. . .![]()
Blind liberalism? Who has been advocating that? Just because you are not laissez-fair-damn-everything-liberal does not mean you cannot avoid state discrimination. I am far from a neo-liberal mind you, rather a social-liberal (I am actually politically active in the socialdemocrat party in Sweden)
Every, single, liberal allows for the Laissez-faire style democracy in some form or another. They cast down what is morally good and uplift which is morally wrong. They do it in order to create a gray matted area in which there can be no right or wrong rather acknowledging the possibility of there being both as well as gray areas. I don't know if this is on purpose but it seems to exist on television, internets, liberal books, you name it.
Once morals are ambigious it becomes okay to let everything slide, or to socially "let do" to the point of being ridiculous. But despite the attempted destruction of morals people still have them, because they cannot be eliminated. You yourself, jeppan, have said that you allow for anything goes as far as sexuality, except children. I am not so ridged as to claim everything goes. I come to the realization of what could be potentially considered acceptable verse what isn't and it works for me. I shouldn't be dicated to by others. Least of all chumps like NickD and mxlm. I wouldn't wipe my arse with them, it would just make my rear dirtier.
At least these are my thoughts.