If you could change anything in history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

So bullying people into thinking a certain way is ok as long as you aren't in government what

---

It isn't bullying but campaigning with Churches and social conservatives to advocate certain views is fine, yes.

For example lets take gay 'marriage' in how i'm libertarian in method but conservative in opinion; my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that I view as void. However in terms of what i'd like the state to do - I would remove the state from marriage which would de facto allow gay 'marriage' aswell as any other form of 'marriage'. I wouldn't ever view it myself as marriage and I could campaign against it, refusing to attend any I am invited to. My point is that the state shouldn't be pro-gay 'marriage' or pro-traditional marriage, it should be removed from that sphere and allow insitutions and individuals to decide.

At the moment the state is on my personal side concerning marriage, but its threatening to move to the opposite side - remove the state from it completely and it'll remove the need for either side to impose its definition on the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I apologise for being bigoted in that I think children shouldn't be exposed to sexual references on the radio, the television and in conversation.

---

It's quite right that you apologise if you are indeed bigoted in that (or any) belief. There's a world of difference between having a strong belief based on real facts/evidences and being bigoted, and despite disagreeing with a lot of what you say on certain matters I know that you do usually attempt to use better arguments than "IT'S JUST WRONG IT IS" so I don't think you actually are all that bigoted. I'd like to believe that you're a logical enough person to not be, at any rate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It isn't bullying but campaigning with Churches and social conservatives to advocate certain views is fine, yes.

For example lets take gay 'marriage' in how i'm libertarian in method but conservative in opinion; my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that I view as void. However in terms of what i'd like the state to do - I would remove the state from marriage which would de facto allow gay 'marriage' aswell as any other form of 'marriage'. I wouldn't ever view it myself as marriage and I could campaign against it, refusing to attend any I am invited to. My point is that the state shouldn't be pro-gay 'marriage' or pro-traditional marriage, it should be removed from that sphere and allow insitutions and individuals to decide.

At the moment the state is on my personal side concerning marriage, but its threatening to move to the opposite side - remove the state from it completely and it'll remove the need for either side to impose its definition on the other.

---

I definitely agree that marriage should be removed from the state - with state inclusion there's all sorts of benefit fraud to be wraught from it (I've honestly considered it myself as a possible future contract for mutual financial benefit) and it totally ignores the existence and wishes of polyamorists, to name just two of the problems that I personally have with the current concept of "marriage" as a legal/state term. Frankly it's just too tricky a subject to attempt to control through legislation in the modern world, especially with differing views on what does or does not constitute a marriage in the first place.

That's not really the point though. The point is that while you should certainly be allowed to state your views on a subject, you shouldn't be trying to actually change any practises that only affect those directly involved, as per your earlier statement of wanting to reverse social attitudes re: sex. If you actually meant you would just be putting forward your views it's not a problem, so long as you don't coerce, threaten, etc., and don't give false evidences or dismiss evidence contrary to your ideals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

It's quite right that you apologise if you are indeed bigoted in that (or any) belief. There's a world of difference between having a strong belief based on real facts/evidences and being bigoted, and despite disagreeing with a lot of what you say on certain matters I know that you do usually attempt to use better arguments than "IT'S JUST WRONG IT IS" so I don't think you actually are all that bigoted. I'd like to believe that you're a logical enough person to not be, at any rate

---

Where is the bigotry in thinking that pornographic/sexual messages are inappropiate for young children in that I believe it ruins their childhood innocence and is not a need for them to see or hear about on a daily basis.

I am struggling to see where bigotry comes into that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

I definitely agree that marriage should be removed from the state - with state inclusion there's all sorts of benefit fraud to be wraught from it (I've honestly considered it myself as a possible future contract for mutual financial benefit) and it totally ignores the existence and wishes of polyamorists, to name just two of the problems that I personally have with the current concept of "marriage" as a legal/state term. Frankly it's just too tricky a subject to attempt to control through legislation in the modern world, especially with differing views on what does or does not constitute a marriage in the first place.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

That's not really the point though. The point is that while you should certainly be allowed to state your views on a subject, you shouldn't be trying to actually change any practises that only affect those directly involved, as per your earlier statement of wanting to reverse social attitudes re: sex. If you actually meant you would just be putting forward your views it's not a problem, so long as you don't coerce, threaten, etc., and don't give false evidences or dismiss evidence contrary to your ideals.

---

Of course I can, for example lets take the drug issue - I would legalise drugs knowing the immense damage that people will do to themselves by taking drugs, but that is their choice. I personally view those taking drugs as stupid, foolish and undeserving of much sympathy once they are hooked. Therefore in a libertarian society the state would neither be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. But as a private subject who agrees with this, I could and would for example involve myself in campaigns (campaigns not calling for legislation on the matter, thats the crucial point) which advised people to stay away from drug taking and to boycott the drug business.

I go back to the sex point as well, as a private subject I would probably boycott stores which insisted in taking a pro-sexual revolutionary stance in what they sell. Heck I might even set up a campaign to persuade them (or threat you could say by launching a boycott) not to follow this social line anymore in which I disapprove of. Instead of using legislation via the state to push for my conservative opinions I would have to use financial pressure and battle for the hearts and minds of the people through simple debate and discussion. Even in a libertarian society, the battle between marxists and conservatives will still go on and I stand with the conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I wouldn't legislate against any of the sexual revolution material (publicised homosexuality, pornography) even though I find them deeply damaging and distasteful.

---

Daniel, you really worry me sometimes. Why do you say things like that? What in the world is wrong with publicised homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong for two men to kiss in public, perhaps at an airport after being apart for a month, just like a woman and man might? I don't want to bring your own orientation in to this but it pains me deeply when anyone, especially fellow homosexuals, say things like this. It is bad enough when psychotics campaign against any normal life for homosexuals. Sometimes these psychotics go so far as to kill people because of it - directly or indirectly. Please do not dig my grave and perhaps your own by advocating the censorship of same-sex love. It is a small step to a big slide in the wrong direction. Do you really think that me showing a public display of affection to my husband is damaging? You really believe that an advertisement on the television showing two women in love is distasteful? Honestly, please tell me you were joking. I am very shaken and upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasey

Daniel, you really worry me sometimes. Why do you say things like that? What in the world is wrong with publicised homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong for two men to kiss in public, perhaps at an airport after being apart for a month, just like a woman and man might? I don't want to bring your own orientation in to this but it pains me deeply when anyone, especially fellow homosexuals, say things like this. It is bad enough when psychotics campaign against any normal life for homosexuals. Sometimes these psychotics go so far as to kill people because of it - directly or indirectly. Please do not dig my grave and perhaps your own by advocating the censorship of same-sex love. It is a small step to a big slide in the wrong direction. Do you really think that me showing a public display of affection to my husband is damaging? You really believe that an advertisement on the television showing two women in love is distasteful? Honestly, please tell me you were joking. I am very shaken and upset.

---

I'm not advocating any legislation on these matters, see above.

Do remember, toleration is not approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Where is the bigotry in thinking that pornographic/sexual messages are inappropiate for young children in that I believe it ruins their childhood innocence and is not a need for them to see or hear about on a daily basis.

I am struggling to see where bigotry comes into that.

---

Which is precisely why I said "if" and that I don't think you are a bigot. Bigotry is holding a belief that you are not willing to budge on no matter what evidence is thrown at you, and you've stated actual reasons for your views in this example. I'm not really sure what you're attacking here - you apologised for being bigoted, I said you weren't being bigoted, then you tried telling me off for calling you bigoted... if the apology was sarcasm then it was putting words in my mouth in that I never mentioned any specifics, and wasn't needed in the first place. So yeah think we're done on this one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Of course I can, for example lets take the drug issue - I would legalise drugs knowing the immense damage that people will do to themselves by taking drugs, but that is their choice. I personally view those taking drugs as stupid, foolish and undeserving of much sympathy once they are hooked. Therefore in a libertarian society the state would neither be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. But as a private subject who agrees with this, I could and would for example involve myself in campaigns (campaigns not calling for legislation on the matter, thats the crucial point) which advised people to stay away from drug taking and to boycott the drug business.

I go back to the sex point as well, as a private subject I would probably boycott stores which insisted in taking a pro-sexual revolutionary stance in what they sell. Heck I might even set up a campaign to persuade them (or threat you could say by launching a boycott) not to follow this social line anymore in which I disapprove of. Instead of using legislation via the state to push for my conservative opinions I would have to use financial pressure and battle for the hearts and minds of the people through simple debate and discussion. Even in a libertarian society, the battle between marxists and conservatives will still go on and I stand with the conservatives.

---

You do know that conservative is not synonymous with Christian purist, right? Personal views on drugs and sex have absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or conservatism, and what you're talking about isn't libertarianism either because you're trying to force certain things to happen for/to other people, which definitely goes against that at the core. You seem basically to be saying you want to do away with the state and replace it not with autonomy but with plutocracy, essentially with a "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" attitude. Any time you impose yourself on someone else you are not acting in a libertarian manner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'm not advocating any legislation on these matters, see above.

Do remember, toleration is not approval.

---

I read very well that you don't support legislation. What I am saying is that an attitude like that is pushing guys like me that have lived before down the stairs they worked very damn hard to climb. I might expect that kind of point of view if you were the leader of Saudi Arabia but you are a very thoughtful and equally homosexual male from a western country. I simply don't understand how you can say things like that. You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely. People like to have their rules on top - it is human nature. I beg you to rethink the things you are saying because I believe that guys like you are the future of our world and it scares me and breaks my heart at the same time to know you think things like this. I don't want to live in a world where I am not allowed to be who I was born to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Which is precisely why I said "if" and that I don't think you are a bigot. Bigotry is holding a belief that you are not willing to budge on no matter what evidence is thrown at you, and you've stated actual reasons for your views in this example. I'm not really sure what you're attacking here - you apologised for being bigoted, I said you weren't being bigoted, then you tried telling me off for calling you bigoted... if the apology was sarcasm then it was putting words in my mouth in that I never mentioned any specifics, and wasn't needed in the first place. So yeah think we're done on this one

---

Oh good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

You do know that conservative is not synonymous with Christian purist, right? Personal views on drugs and sex have absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or conservatism,

---

Yes they do i'm afraid, conservatives believe in sexual morality whereas cultural marxism pushes for the legalisation of drugs, a care-free sexual climate (which is also viewed as the freedom of the woman).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

and what you're talking about isn't libertarianism either because you're trying to force certain things to happen for/to other people, which definitely goes against that at the core. You seem basically to be saying you want to do away with the state and replace it not with autonomy but with plutocracy, essentially saying "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want". Any time you impose yourself on someone else you are not acting in a libertarian manner

---

I don't have to act in a libertarian (which I think you are confusing with modern liberalism) manner in my personal life. I take this "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" - as an individual if you are doing something which I disapprove of for whatever reasons and you are on my property then I can force you to comply otherwise you are ejected from my property. If not and it is a business that I do not own for example doing something which I do not approve of then they do not have to take any notice of me should they choose to do so.

Attempting to reason somebody/the population around to your opinion without using force is libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasey

I read very well that you don't support legislation. What I am saying is that an attitude like that is pushing guys like me that have lived before down the stairs they worked very damn hard to climb. I might expect that kind of point of view if you were the leader of Saudi Arabia but you are a very thoughtful and equally homosexual male from a western country. I simply don't understand how you can say things like that. You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely. People like to have their rules on top - it is human nature. I beg you to rethink the things you are saying because I believe that guys like you are the future of our world and it scares me and breaks my heart at the same time to know you think things like this. I don't want to live in a world where I am not allowed to be who I was born to be.

---

Ah yes, because Saudi Arabia pushes for the state to stay out of the business of homosexuals.

I don't see the issue you've picked here, I don't support any legislation on this topic - in a libertarian society we'd simply be battling against one another for the attitudes of the people, and thats another debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Yes they do i'm afraid, conservatives believe in sexual morality whereas cultural marxism pushes for the legalisation of drugs, a care-free sexual climate (which is also viewed as the freedom of the woman).

---

Oh dear, we're confusing conservative with Conservative are we? Sexual morality is subjective (as is all morality) and so to suggest that one who doesn't comply with a strict "only in marriage, only for procreation" approach -or any other- does not have sexual morals is entirely wrong. I rather thought you'd have learned the difference in terms by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I don't have to act in a libertarian (which I think you are confusing with modern liberalism) manner in my personal life. I take this "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" - as an individual if you are doing something which I disapprove of for whatever reasons and you are on my property then I can force you to comply otherwise you are ejected from my property. If not and it is a business that I do not own for example doing something which I do not approve of then they do not have to take any notice of me should they choose to do so.

Attempting to reason somebody/the population around to your opinion without using force is libertarian.

---

Use of boycotts and financial pressure in order to impress a point on people is not "without using force". If I have a choice between being shot dead and being allowed to live but having to live by another's ethical code that I don't agree with I'd certainly take life, but that wouldn't mean I haven't been forced into a certain way of living. That's an extreme, but it's the extreme of pressure. Genuinely disappointed in where this has ended up, honestly believed you had a grip on logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Oh dear, we're confusing conservative with Conservative are we? Sexual morality is subjective (as is all morality) and so to suggest that one who doesn't comply with a strict "only in marriage, only for procreation" approach -or any other- does not have sexual morals is entirely wrong. I rather thought you'd have learned the difference in terms by now.

---

No 'we' are not referring to the Conservative Party with the capital C, I don 't believe its come up actually. The morality argument is an entirely different argument that I have tried to steer away from as you come from the left on the issue whereas I come from the conservative side on the issue which supports the notion of Christian morality which has been present on these islands for thousands of years and is something myself and conservatives wish to preserve. We agree on the state issue and how to go about this, we differ on the personal issues - but i'm not wanting to go into them here in-depth because they are entirely different subjects.

I am not arguing for morality to be legislated on although I will argue in favour of what I view as morality should you wish to do so at any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Use of boycotts and financial pressure in order to impress a point on people is not "without using force". If I have a choice between being shot dead and being allowed to live but having to live by another's ethical code that I don't agree with I'd certainly take life, but that wouldn't mean I haven't been forced into a certain way of living. That's an extreme, but it's the extreme of pressure. Genuinely disappointed in where this has ended up, honestly believed you had a grip on logic.

---

Then you again show you don't understand a libertarian society, you are now bringing anarchy into the topic which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I understand the point about the gun being used to pressure people, and thats exactly why i'm a libertarian with conservative personal opinions and not an anarchist.