Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat should humans do about this in so far as how they organize themselves?
Transgenderism resembles an illness more than it does a behavior as we have the mind not conforming to physical reality and thus being delusional.
I believe in always enforcing the law and the rules. Anyone who uses violence, regardless of who it is towards, needs to be punished. They deserve equal protection under the law and equal expectation that crimes against them will be treated with equal importance.
As for transgenderism... I'd never use state funds for it at all but if someone really feels their life aspiration is to do this to themselves, we should not create some apparatus to prevent them because they are ultimately free people and we would be petty and foolish to devote resources to preventing it. Likewise, I think we don't need to have all these resources dedicated to interfering with workplace hiring. Private people can make their own contracts and take care of themselves.
I don't run a business but let's say that I did... I'd hire anyone fit for the job and I'd not ask them about their sexual lifestyle or their religious views. For a white collar job, I'd also expect someone to look like a white collar worker, dressed modestly and in a professional manner.
If it turns out that Tom drinks too much and spends money on prostitutes, I'd not fire him. If it turns out John is gay, I'd not fire him. We're all going to have stuff like that. No reason to wtich hunt it.
But for that matter... our vices should be private, personal affairs. "Skeletons in the closet." This is where the "behind closed door" concept comes from... it's about having the social space be an agreeable, formal place that speaks highly of the local society as being civil, cultured, polite, dignified, etc..
Obviously, there's always going to be "THOSE" districts in big cities, and that's fine. I believe firmly that prostitution should be technically illegal but should be allowed to occur in certain zones so as to be controlled and monitored. Let every town have its gay bar and its little areas of vice. It's fine. Let's just all be realistic -- this isn't the best behavior, and we should not actively signal that this is good.
The theory is that we need to actively promote virtues and actively dissuade people from vice. Sometimes this has to be literally through legal prohibition but, generally, just social engineering works well.
We make more problems than we fix when we try to control everything. So, we need relaxed policies, but a very clear public image and promotion of the good.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI am happy for you to think what you want about homosexuals. I am happy for you to frame your perspective in terms of virtue and lack of virtue. And if you also want homosexuals to have the same freedoms as you and I have and for government to respect and protect those freedoms without discrimination, then not only do I personally see that aspiration on your part as a virtue, but we are also in agreement about the practicality and appropriateness of it.
The theory is that we need to actively promote virtues and actively dissuade people from vice. Sometimes this has to be literally through legal prohibition but, generally, just social engineering works well.
We make more problems than we fix when we try to control everything. So, we need relaxed policies, but a very clear public image and promotion of the good.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat about self-defense?
I believe in always enforcing the law and the rules. Anyone who uses violence, regardless of who it is towards, needs to be punished.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou can manage the application of these wishes and principles through who you associate with, what groups you join, what intellectual materials you consume, where you go, and within your family too. Right? Like for example, if a church down the street marries gay couples you can give it a wide berth. Or you can talk theology to members of that church over a coffee if you want to. If you have relatives who are gay you can manage your interpersonal relationships with them as you see fit, etc.
...our vices should be private, personal affairs. "Skeletons in the closet." This is where the "behind closed door" concept comes from... it's about having the social space be an agreeable, formal place that speaks highly of the local society as being civil, cultured, polite, dignified, etc..
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemI'd never have a problem with self-defense. It'd be ridiculous to not be able to legally defend yourself.
What about self-defense?
Originally posted by @fmfRight.
You can manage the application of these wishes and principles through who you associate with, what groups you join, what intellectual materials you consume, where you go, and within your family too. Right? Like for example, if a church down the street marries gay couples you can give it a wide berth. Or you can talk theology to members of that church over a co ...[text shortened]... tives who are gay you can manage your interpersonal relationships with them as you see fit, etc.
You also have to take into account that we believe the current status was brought about by decades of conditioning by the media and the left. The only reason that the Anglicans and other mainstream protestant churches are having discussions on these things is because there has been a concentrated effort to change the culture of the people -- not an effort that came from the people, heed you, but a top-down effort.
So I do not really anticipate that there would be any mainstream movement at all in an organic society to normalize homosexuality or marry them in the traditions of Christianity. If there was one, you could just ignore it, just as how the very serious objections of the most serious people are ignored by the media.
There actually was never really a rich public discussion on this because instead of bringing on real conservative spokespersons we instead got 2 weeks of 15 second clips of Kim Davis standing with emotion next to random conservatives. Ignoring the issue and burying it works for keeping issues like divorce and single parent families destroying children out of the limelight, it can surely keep far less detrimental issues on the low burner.
Really, the only issue would be outside agitation -- something that Russia faces today.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWell, I am not religious and I am not particularly interested in your politics or your views on history as seen through your personal religious and political prism [although I am happy to read what you write]. If you, like me, want homosexuals to have the same freedoms as you and I do, and for government to respect and protect those freedoms without discrimination, then we are in agreement.
Right.
You also have to take into account that we believe the current status was brought about by decades of conditioning by the media and the left. The only reason that the Anglicans and other mainstream protestant churches are having discussions on these things is because there has been a concentrated effort to change the culture of the people ...[text shortened]... ner.
Really, the only issue would be outside agitation -- something that Russia faces today.
It's cool. I understand you aren't actually that interested.
No one really is.
I do not worry about that, though, because I believe that the world is literally changing to a state that is more conducive to my point of view. It's not like I was born in the 1950s and have to wash the totality of everything erode. I am at some point where I am beginning to see the thoughts that eroded my own political views progressively erode itself.
Or, at least I think so. God willing. I can't possibly know.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleNot interested? I said I'm not interested in your personal religious and political views ~ you think you are saying original unheeded 'voice in the wilderness' stuff that I haven't heard before and that you are therefore really interesting?
It's cool. I understand you aren't actually that interested. No one really is.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou seem to have sidestepped what I have put to you several times now. It was this: If you, like me, want homosexuals to have the same freedoms as you and I do, and for government to respect and protect those freedoms without discrimination, then we are in agreement. So, can you be unequivocal? Are we in agreement?
I do not worry about that, though, because I believe that the world is literally changing to a state that is more conducive to my point of view. It's not like I was born in the 1950s and have to wash the totality of everything erode. I am at some point where I am beginning to see the thoughts that eroded my own political views progressively erode itself.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleMuch of what you have written on this thread seems to be "begging the question".
Right.
You also have to take into account that we believe the current status was brought about by decades of conditioning by the media and the left. The only reason that the Anglicans and other mainstream protestant churches are having discussions on these things is because there has been a concentrated effort to change the culture of the people ...[text shortened]... ner.
Really, the only issue would be outside agitation -- something that Russia faces today.
What would be the basis for determining what is or is not "moral"? If it is the views of a particular religious tradition, then the problem is whether or not any given viewpoint was ever "moral" to begin with.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by @suzianneWe need to organize our personal self defense, or become a Mad Max state.
Or the defense of others?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
“...In other words, [Max] Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.”
It’s a big risk, delegating the physical resistance to violence to a police force.