After destroying everything that protected them, that shelter them. After destroying the nation border that shelter from the foreign influence, after destroying the traditional communities and religion that made people to be tied with each others. After destroy the very last cell of the society as the family, telling that children with sperm bought on the web is perfectly fine. Then
They would find themselves subjected to others ties and laws.
They rejected nations ? They will the golden calf and the chains of debt.
They rejected spirituality ? They will be slave to their pleasure and addictions.
They rejected traditional family ? The social construct they built will fall eventually, and they shall find themselves with the results of their eugenics experiments and not another chance to do a proper one.
You may easily mob a poor fellow who spend his life studying our civilization and society and tried to defend it to his last drop of blood. The reward of tolerance will be bitter once we saw what "tolerance" built. And we will see whose houses survive the tempest.
Your conservative views stand in the way of progress. You mentioned three things, all equally inane concepts.
First of, nations. Governed states with borders to contain one's mind and physical presence, to force laws and distort education into a sense of patriotism. These closed communities segregate one human from the other, separating them to view each other as strangers and unequal. As long as they exist they are to serve their rulers who will in turn use the land they think belongs only to themselves as an excuse to advance their own personal gains and blind the people into submission with promises of defense as they kill one another. The blooming cultures contained within instead of peacefully coexisting and influencing one another will war damaging both the land and the population.
Next, spirituality. The word obviously comes from "spirit" an asinine notion since such a thing does not exist. Spirits exist only in the minds of those who only believe through baseless faith. Like religion and all other similar concepts it is harmful to man because it causes him to ignore facts and reality and surrender his free will and thought to inexistent pseudo-superior beings. It is a blight to be wiped.
Finally, traditional family. A family who upholds meaningful cultural tradition is absolutely fine but it all comes down to the tradition in question and whether it is done with zeal or not. Is the symbolism behind it something that brings happiness or honors paragons or is it an act of pointless nationalistic and religious bickering? Examples of good traditions is days of remembering cultural revolutions that fought for civil rights so that we may learn from them and study them further to advance our own freedom and evolution in turn. Useless tradition examples could be those of Easter where their only true point is to sink man further into false hopes of salvation.
An anti gay marriage nutjob trying to make a martyr out of another anti gay marriage nutjob who had the brilliant idea of mixing some inane version of nationalism into the mess and then committed suicide when nobody gave a ****?
An anti gay marriage nutjob trying to make a martyr out of another anti gay marriage nutjob who had the brilliant idea of mixing some inane version of nationalism into the mess and then committed suicide when nobody gave a ****?
Yes. I'm so glad there 55 pages of this bull**** to read. And a few hundred more of ancalimon's bull****. Enough to remind me every day for the rest of my life why I hate humanity.
I never understood the "marriage" label of it.
I mean if a religious institution doesn't want to connect two folks based on the teachings of their religion then the nobod should be able to force them to do it.
Now, recognising relationships in the face of the law as equal regadless of the genders involved is something different and obviously should be a given.
I guess it's the word "marriage" that's always weirding me out about it. I always connect that with the religious aspect of it, which IMO shouldn't be a matter for the state to allow or not allow.
The issue is that we've got religions trying to claim responsibility for the creation of marriage as we understand it. When frankly that's highly unlikely, yet they cling to the idea that only they ever thought of it and this have some "monopoly" on who gets to have rights to it.
Since there are so many laws concerning marriage it goes beyond being a strictly religious institution that you can either accept or ignore. The definition of marriage being only spiritual or religious or not has not been ignored at all and if a minister doesn't want to perform a marriage for a homosexual couple he shouldn't have to.
By allowing legal marriages of homosexuals you are sort of making a mockery of the institution of marriage but it wouldn't have needed to come to this if everyone had kept their religion out of the legal system. The fact that only family members can visit dying patients in hospitals is one of the popular examples in America for why it isn't right to exclude certain people from legally getting married, even if they are atheists or worshippers of Baal.
Those people would be more likely to go to a city hall to get married rather than having a big fancy church wedding anyway. It would lessen the chance of them getting into a fight over who gets to wear the gown or the suit or if they will both wear a pink dress.
But now, what started from the individuality of the Christianity, moved on to" universal human rights for everyone and anyone" , and the equalitarism soon turned in a ideology which hurried to serve the Golden Calf.
Probably a last necro, now that the laws is voted. Yet now that my exams weeks is over i would like to answer to a few people who pointed out arguments.
For the rest you know the drill. I'm evil you are good. Therefore you can't be wrong and i can't be right.
If tolerance is the only and the core value, it's turn into weakness. In a end-game mindset where the or mind is as well as good as your and you see no point in defending your positions. Or a sort of unlimited Relativism. This is the extreme tolerance.
Otherwise, those who have other values can choose to be tolerant depending of the situation.
Are the islamic people murdering every French they come by over there? No? So the French can easily outbreed them. Also what's up with this prediction, it's based on what? Does he think immigration occurs in a always evolving scale? Pure ignorance. Here in Brazil, about 100 years ago, we had a mass immigration of Japanese people. They didn't turn us into a japanese country, they became Brazilian.
The fact that we talk about him means he still more famous in his end than the common late aged retired. Now i don't expect you to understand him without a reading a line of his thoughts.
So Anything that we can do is natural. It's a sort of Promethean ways. The end justify the means.
Where does "progress" stop and where does "ethics" start ?
There was a "Raelian" sect doing illegal genetic mutation foetus or embryo and cloning
A company founded by his followers announced Friday that the first human clone has been born -- a 7-pound baby girl dubbed "Eve."
If you are intellectually honest. If it's real, it's natural. Now, is it good for humanity ? Is right ?
Would it be beneficial to reproduce on large scale ? Just like what the surrogacy industry is becoming.
We should indeed destroy everything that prevents equality and freedom, since these are good things as they're needed for people to be truly happy. Or would you rather be chained and treated like a dog because you have a different opinion than the majority? Worse, a different opinion concerning yourself, that doesn't have anything to do with others.
It's not bending society to their wills in any way. They're not trying to make you marry someone of your sex. Also they are, at least here, heavily coerced into not being gay, because people in the street openly offend or even attack homosexual couples in sight.
I love to use those terms because oppose themselves. In a mostly free society, the smartest/strongest/wealthiest members got de-facto on a higher social and sometimes intellectual level than the rest of society. Therefore equality is broke. Unless we reduce freedom to force people down to the same level. Which is a core of the "class warfare" of marxism, and its socialist derivative.
A fake sense of freedom is in fact a way to dominate read this :
"As reduces the economic and political freedom, sexual freedom tends to increase in compensation. And the dictator (unless he has need of cannon fodder and families to colonize territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. Along with the freedom to indulge in dreams during the day under the influence of drugs, film and radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate. "
Concerning the rest, you presume that outside a hypothetical states of "full freedom and equality" there is no life, no happiness.
Somalia is entirely free in its anarchist stateless states. However people don't seems very happy down there as they aren't free from starvation war and suffering.
I'm still waiting a study proving a correlation between "freedom" and "equality" to "happiness"
You can't enforce full equality either, as it's would require a excessive use of force. It's not pratical either since people are not equal in a sense of "similar" enough to form a whole society. Some would stand from the rest, at least to lead the "equal" society from the inequal position of leader.
Finally, freedom of expression and tough should always be guaranteed at least to make sure that criticism and politics can goes freely. But true equality (outside equality upon application of laws which is the base of a state of law ) can't be enforced. True freedom is a definition of acceptable freedom of action depending of the civilization.
Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.
Honore de Balzac
The media and arts were a step ahead of the public when it came to advancing gay rights, the vice president said. Public acceptance of drastic social changes took time. “It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes.”
“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry,” he said. “The influence is immense.”
Just like the FED, like the E.U, like the debt slavery, like the lock-up political party system. This is a great Dominion of hypocrisy and propaganda instead of force of arms and legitimacy .
I'm already seeing gays marriage on TV series and others medias in France, and children from the primary school will be indoctrinated.
Erase differences between men and women? UMP deputies want the creation of a commission of inquiry into the introduction and dissemination of "gender theory" in France.
You just compared being a couple in front of others to throwing sex adventures around. The other civilizations, wary to defend their values? Oh, you mean the ones that put burkas on women so the men won't rape them in the street. So nice to hold dear to old norms and values.
Is accepting that people can love anyone and anything something different than opening your mind to new ideas and cultures? No.
You made a clear case of relativism and tolerance as core value. This mindset won't survive long due to its inherent lack of cultural self preservation.
I begin to tire of this. Everything above is bull****. The market is exploring gay marriage to make a profit, boohoo. Women are now like everyone else? Boohoo. Cut the crap.
Here a comprehensive documentary about Tammuz a surrogacy israeli company. . A few years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCMPhNUF1A&feature=player_detailpage
Let sum this for new comers:
- Surrogacy and childbirth are done in India ( it's cheap )
-Genetic materiel is picked on a web interface online.
-That include sperm and ovum of your choice. Froze and send by plane.
- And after 9 months the customers take the living package.
- You just need a credit card
We have a growing list of active donors who work with our fertility clinic in the United States. Most of the donors are students in their early 20s. Prior to being accepted as donors they undergo an extensive medical and psychological selection process that includes the preparation of a genetic profile
The "East - West" plan is a unique idea and product of our company. The plan combines coordinated work of both fertility centers - in the United States and in India. The embryos are created in United States and then frozen and transferred to India where they are transplanted into a surrogate.
PRICE :US$58,000
Your hear the man; EVERYONE can have a baby. You want ? you a have cash ? You can buy it.
Anyone with enough cash to buy a sport car can buy a baby of his choice, composed to his tastes. The only thing you need is a credit card.
The last time children were took from their mothers arms was during slavery. Well. Now this is a economic slavery, mothers to hire on the labour market so this is fair and fine.
So much for a defender of civil rights to support de facto surrogacy, third-world mothers market exploitation on babies reproduction. To support genetic eugenism and near-slavery considering you allow the sales of children from their rightful mothers.
You can't support both gays marriage and refuse them to procreate trought IVF (sperm sales for lesbo) and surrogacy. I would like all the people who actually support the marriage to stand up and voice their opinon about this "slight" problems of allowing socially infertile" marriage"
The only schizo here is you. You're projecting something that isn't there.
Rephrasing your quote, "We are all in equal standing to make our own diverse decisions" would be the true statement here.
Gays couple and traditional couple are unequal by nature.
One can reproduce with 2 members (unless there is a disease)
the second can't reproduce under any circumstances and therefore are socially unfertile and "need" a third opposite member party to breed children.
They don't follow the same patterns, they can't have the same rules concerning their unions otherwise you deny their difference which is a physiological fact and NOT a society construct.
And to finish gloriously
PoisonCourtesan said:
Your conservative views stand in the way of progress. You mentioned three things, all equally inane concepts.
First of, nations. Governed states with borders to contain one's mind and physical presence, to force laws and distort education into a sense of patriotism. These closed communities segregate one human from the other, separating them to view each other as strangers and unequal. As long as they exist they are to serve their rulers who will in turn use the land they think belongs only to themselves as an excuse to advance their own personal gains and blind the people into submission with promises of defense as they kill one another. The blooming cultures contained within instead of peacefully coexisting and influencing one another will war damaging both the land and the population.
The segregate as you call it, was a historical process of forming nation trough bond of tribes and cities which formed kingdoms and turned into states. I definitively know that there were wars. A lot of them. Killing too. But as we didn't had any ways of communications, and as the resources were limited ( based on manpower and territory size ) war had to occur as violence is inherent to mankind. If violence has been diverted in our post-modern society it's only to see them surging during football match, and after a great deal of pacification beforehand.
Nearly all Nations borders were traced in blood. (except transgenderland but it's a special case) Few people lived without fighting, even if i wish it was otherwise. But yourself you probably had ancestors who died on the battlefield. Yet , they were as the others deluded fools gutting each other for some leaders or governments. Now did they had the choice ? Probably they may have avoided conflict and fled, but they known they were doing it for reason higher than their life. The reason is that you are here today. Think about it.
Peace only has a sense with a self-defence potential AKA armed peace. Otherwise it's submission to a stronger foe.
And the blooming culture. Which one ? Quote me some to see how they did survived and prospered trought the course of ages.
Next, spirituality. The word obviously comes from "spirit" an asinine notion since such a thing does not exist. Spirits exist only in the minds of those who only believe through baseless faith. Like religion and all other similar concepts it is harmful to man because it causes him to ignore facts and reality and surrender his free will and thought to inexistent pseudo-superior beings. It is a blight to be wiped.
Modern religion tends to have a right balance between faith and reason, too much faith, and it's become backward as we may see beetwen europe and asia. A proper care should be done in order to make sure that texts are interpretated in order to promote goodness in society as it's the role of a traditional religion.
However too much "reason" and it's cease to exist as it's oppose materialism and sheer efficiency.
Tell me, why should i bother seducing women instead of raping ones ? As a mercenary, why can't i take pleasure into slaying unarmed people knowing no-one would find out ?
Why should i bother about those who are weaker ? Why can't i use my wealth and influence to manipulate state and laws to enforce my powers over the weak ?
As a scientist, where are the limits ? Can i fundamentally change humans to its very nature and create a monstrosity for the sake of science ?
It's take a very strong moral sense to answer those questions, and more often than not people aren't ready for a fully secular humanism.
Mao tried to wipe out religion, like Staline and others, in the end, their form of communism and the "leader cult" become a religion in itself. I'm quite sure that creating new religions is like creating new explosives. You can't be sure of the result.
Finally, traditional family. A family who upholds meaningful cultural tradition is absolutely fine but it all comes down to the tradition in question and whether it is done with zeal or not. Is the symbolism behind it something that brings happiness or honors paragons or is it an act of pointless nationalistic and religious bickering? Examples of good traditions is days of remembering cultural revolutions that fought for civil rights so that we may learn from them and study them further to advance our own freedom and evolution in turn. Useless tradition examples could be those of Easter where their only true point is to sink man further into false hopes of salvation.
First, the cultural revolution and civil rights movement were for part of them ordered from backstage lobbying. Like Georges Soros which has funded and used the feminist "FEMEN" group as a activist strike force around Europe. Even so, the events didn't entered in history yet ( as the modern rights movement, such as LGBT and late feminism didn't start before the 60s. Not to mention that people are starting (at least in europe ) to get back to traditional values. As progressivism can't sustain on the long term due its very nature.
So you have the heroes you want but we shall see if they enter in the history and are being celebrated in 100 years. We still remember great states men and military figure. as for civil rights activists, not so sure about naked women shout against the Pope the patriarchy ect ect ...
On the side note : i would like to ask you if you intend to have children. To be honest and with no offence, as you consider yourself "according to your profile on TW " as a transsexual. I'm not exactly sure of how you would do this (would you buy your baby ? ) , and how the children will live it.
you may consider that even for the most progressive of us. That disturbing at least.
I never understood the "marriage" label of it.
I mean if a religious institution doesn't want to connect two folks based on the teachings of their religion then the nobod should be able to force them to do it.
Now, recognising relationships in the face of the law as equal regadless of the genders involved is something different and obviously should be a given.
I guess it's the word "marriage" that's always weirding me out about it. I always connect that with the religious aspect of it, which IMO shouldn't be a matter for the state to allow or not allow.
Marriage is from The latin "matrĭmōnĭum" protection of the mother. While the church was doing civil matters that was linked to the religious obligations. The late secular government simply took a functioning institution to their own text laws. The problem isn't about the to folk. It's raise concerning about legal matter, adoption, international adoption (all countries but Brazil and south Africa refuse to donate orphans to gay couple ) tax code (marriage is a state benefits for creating a household and getting children,nothing about love in the text of laws ), education of live for children of all the society.
Pillock said:
The issue is that we've got religions trying to claim responsibility for the creation of marriage as we understand it. When frankly that's highly unlikely, yet they cling to the idea that only they ever thought of it and this have some "monopoly" on who gets to have rights to it.
It's not about monopoly. The marriage loose value as the "only valid" form of union to get children if there is other form in competition. Therefore deriving even more people to infertile marriage.
Just about anyone can have a baby right now. It's called ****ing, and everyone that was born with functioning sex organs and survives to maturity can do it.
Gays couple and traditional couple are unequal by nature.
One can reproduce with 2 members (unless there is a disease)
the second can't reproduce under any circumstances and therefore are socially unfertile and "need" a third opposite member party to breed children.
They don't follow the same patterns, they can't have the same rules concerning their unions otherwise you deny their difference which is a physiological fact and NOT a society construct.
Your hear the man; EVERYONE can have a baby. You want ? you a have cash ? You can buy it.
Anyone with enough cash to buy a sport car can buy a baby of his choice, composed to his tastes. The only thing you need is a credit card.
The last time children were took from their mothers arms was during slavery. Well. Now this is a economic slavery, mothers to hire on the labour market so this is fair and fine.
So much for a defender of civil rights to support de facto surrogacy, third-world mothers market exploitation on babies reproduction. To support genetic eugenism and near-slavery considering you allow the sales of children from their rightful mothers.
You can't support both gays marriage and refuse them to procreate trought IVF (sperm sales for lesbo) and surrogacy. I would like all the people who actually support the marriage to stand up and voice their opinon about this "slight" problems of allowing socially infertile" marriage"
Why don't you think the consent of these mothers is enough to make this process justified?
This is the answer to the continuation of the species problem you sometimes bring up. It doesn't matter how many people are making babies, but also who many times said people are making babies in their life time.
And you've failed to address my instances that not all eugenism is bad. Preventing mental degradation by not bonking your sister is a good thing! Likewise, the prevention of many congenital diseases is also important. Why would you purposefully bring into the world a baby who has a severe nervous system disease rather than one that doesn't?
Oh, the act passed the Lords by a majority the other day, despite several old farts claiming, through some sort of insanity, that it would open the door too wanton acts of paedophilia and incest. :3
The segregate as you call it, was a historical process of forming nation trough bond of tribes and cities which formed kingdoms and turned into states. I definitively know that there were wars. A lot of them. Killing too. But as we didn't had any ways of communications, and as the resources were limited ( based on manpower and territory size ) war had to occur as violence is inherent to mankind. If violence has been diverted in our post-modern society it's only to see them surging during football match, and after a great deal of pacification beforehand.
Nearly all Nations borders were traced in blood. (except transgenderland but it's a special case) Few people lived without fighting, even if i wish it was otherwise. But yourself you probably had ancestors who died on the battlefield. Yet , they were as the others deluded fools gutting each other for some leaders or governments. Now did they had the choice ? Probably they may have avoided conflict and fled, but they known they were doing it for reason higher than their life. The reason is that you are here today. Think about it.
Peace only has a sense with a self-defence potential AKA armed peace. Otherwise it's submission to a stronger foe.
The fact that this was our species' past does not mean we are not to advance out of it and replace it with new concepts. My ancestors which you say died for my generation and for something higher than their life did what they had to do, even if almost always mistaken. I do not want to follow their example nor do I associate myself with their sense of patriotism simple because it is false. Now in our day and age where we are all connected through international relations with the help of technology we are to negotiate and discuss not war just because those who consider themselves leaders want so.
Modern religion tends to have a right balance between faith and reason, too much faith, and it's become backward as we may see beetwen europe and asia. A proper care should be done in order to make sure that texts are interpretated in order to promote goodness in society as it's the role of a traditional religion.
However too much "reason" and it's cease to exist as it's oppose materialism and sheer efficiency.
Faith in magical fairies and supernatural beings is as useless as it is baseless. Nothing good ever comes out of religion, it does not develop moral codes for those who can comprehend religious texts because if they can they have already formed their own. Reason is to fully replace faith, because it is a brain process that actually aids our existence unlike religion that always harms.
First, the cultural revolution and civil rights movement were for part of them ordered from backstage lobbying. Like Georges Soros which has funded and used the feminist "FEMEN" group as a activist strike force around Europe. Even so, the events didn't entered in history yet ( as the modern rights movement, such as LGBT and late feminism didn't start before the 60s. Not to mention that people are starting (at least in europe ) to get back to traditional values. As progressivism can't sustain on the long term due its very nature.
"Progressivism" can't sustain itself long-term due to its very nature? Excuse me, what world do you live in? Are you completely delusional about your surroundings? Were it not for progress and constant change you would still be ape-like, no different from an animal. The fact that our lives are aided through creations of man such as machines and constructs of all kinds is proof enough against your argument. If you would listen to basic logic you would observe that we have and we always will create or further old creations. It is evolution.
So you have the heroes you want but we shall see if they enter in the history and are being celebrated in 100 years. We still remember great states men and military figure. as for civil rights activists, not so sure about naked women shout against the Pope the patriarchy ect ect ...
Those women remove their clothes publicly because nudity shocks those conservative individuals, who consider our natural state hideous or to be hid. Thus it is done to protest against their various anachronistic views which you share. As for why we remember "state men" and military figures it is because mankind likes to document its history so as to write down its progress and to learn from its past mistakes. Do not fuse the terms remember and revere, they are two different concepts and lines of action. Revering most of those individuals which you most probably meant I consider harmful for reasons I stated in my previous argument.
On the side note : i would like to ask you if you intend to have children. To be honest and with no offence, as you consider yourself "according to your profile on TW " as a transsexual. I'm not exactly sure of how you would do this (would you buy your baby ? ) , and how the children will live it.
you may consider that even for the most progressive of us. That disturbing at least.
I happen to have a partner who has a vagina. Just because I consider myself female or in better term feminine in appearance (since I transcend such social archetypes and gender constructs) does not mean I have to cut off my genitalia. If I ever decide to have kids it will be through those means and I will most certainly instruct them and advise them to lead their lives like I do, free of any external boundaries. I will tell them to shed away any morality others try to impose on them, to not follow others blindly and to not forsake any of their rights for a conventional existence.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
