Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[MSimon]

The Salient point of this thread is that the standards of what is tolerable are evolving in the same direction. Towards what used to be considered "evil."

Explain me this - for thousands of years marijuana use for any reason was not considered evil. Now it is.

Perhaps nature is wreaking its vengeance:

http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/downloa ... W&inline=1

[MSimon]

Perhaps murder is not a popular sport because most people don't want to do it. Even anonymously.

See S.L.A. Marshall's study on weapons firing in combat. About 80% won't pull the trigger. And that is after training.

Sex OTOH.....

[MSimon]

The trouble with conservatives is that their standards are as malleable as the standards of the socialists.

Things that used to be between you and your Maker are now issues of government concern.

Statism is the EVIL stalking the world. I'm told that one of the great world religious leaders was against it. Most of his followers these days pay no attention to that part of his message. Pity. In fact some one recently told me that an incident that vividly illustrated that was taken out of the canon. Something about adultery and the death penalty. And casting the first stone.

Power and Control.

[Diogenes]

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

Perhaps you can explain this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns ... us-states/

Why yes I can, but I don't think it will be worthwhile. Too many times have I gone into detail on some subject all to receive a reply from you that indicates you didn't read or regard anything which I had written.

The most i'll bother with this is that it is comprehensive when you look at the larger social demographics at work.

[KitemanSA]

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

I think the distinction is that most kids and other people can see the distinction between "can't do this TO" and "can't do this WITH"; unlike many conservative theorists.

[Betruger]

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

It's no theory, it's observed, empirical trend. Females are pent up in North America, like nowhere else. There is no "theory" suggested for it. And the comparison to murders is apples and oranges if I even were to suggest what I think drives this trend. Sex is not murder.

As MSimon said in different words.

[Diogenes]

The trouble with conservatives is that their standards are as malleable as the standards of the socialists.

Things that used to be between you and your Maker are now issues of government concern.

Engaging in conduct which spreads a deadly disease, and creating children that will have to either be let to die or be paid for by the common folk *IS NOT* conduct that stays between you and your maker.

Statism is the EVIL stalking the world. I'm told that one of the great world religious leaders was against it. Most of his followers these days pay no attention to that part of his message. Pity. In fact some one recently told me that an incident that vividly illustrated that was taken out of the canon. Something about adultery and the death penalty. And casting the first stone.

Power and Control.

The State is a necessary evil. It was originally created by the rule of the strong man, but has evolved into the rule by representatives of the community. Like it or not, it is responsible for enforcing the laws, which are the codified will of the community. That the will of the community as represented by our laws, ought to reflect natural law is something I believe in, but in practice this is often not the case.

As for Jesus's Admonishment, a reducto ad absurdum will demonstrate the concept is nonviable. Were the enforcement of laws to require person's who have never done anything wrong, it would be impossible to enforce any of them, and therefore nothing to stop the killing of other people for whatever reason suits someone's fancy. It becomes a recursive paradox, and therefore the notion is clearly wrong. It is a clever tactic to manipulate people, nothing more.

[MSimon]

The cause of rampant pre-marital sex has been found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

[Diogenes]

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

I think the distinction is that most kids and other people can see the distinction between "can't do this TO" and "can't do this WITH"; unlike many conservative theorists.

You are going to half to clarify your statement. I'm not grasping whatever it is you are trying to say.

My position is that often, people wish to disown responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are not obvious and immediate. Spreading a disease that kills later, or making a child that others pay for later, being but two examples of this sort of behavior.


But let us look at something that seemingly has no injury to anyone. Do you support the legalization of Bestiality?

[MSimon]

Well yes. The state is a necessary evil. Which is why I would like to reduce it by a factor of 10X. Because - you know - I want to reduce systematic evil.

Both liberals and conservatives want an increase in the state - for their own pet projects. The real clue to the question is that neither side ever reduces the work of the other side. i.e. while acting seemingly in opposition they are actually in cahoots.

[MSimon]

Do you support the legalization of Bestiality?

Only if the animals are dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNid32DN-ys

[Diogenes]

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

It's no theory, it's observed, empirical trend. Females are pent up in North America, like nowhere else. There is no "theory" suggested for it. And the comparison to murders is apples and oranges if I even were to suggest what I think drives this trend. Sex is not murder.

As MSimon said in different words.

The salient point has nothing to do with the specifics of whatever conduct is being prohibited. It makes no difference if it is "sex" or "murder" the argument put forth is that it is the PROHIBITION of the conduct that causes more of it. I merely presented an example where this was obviously not the case.

I suspect there are other examples of prohibition which do not encourage the behavior, such as stealing and rape. Prohibiting the sale of explosives and fissile material also come to mind.

If there is any Apples to Oranges like confusion, it is regarding the suggestion that it is Prohibition alone that encourages something. Last I checked, Humans (as well as all other creatures) have a genetic predisposition to engaging in sexual activity that is quite hard for them to suppress even when they know it is the right thing to do.

Humans are encouraged mostly by their genes, and if prohibition serves as any sort of further encouragement, it is due to inherent rebellion against social dominance by others. (also genetic)

[Diogenes]

The cause of rampant pre-marital sex has been found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

I notice you refrain from dealing with my points. It *IS* much easier to just make a joke than to rebut something logically.

[Diogenes]

Well yes. The state is a necessary evil. Which is why I would like to reduce it by a factor of 10X. Because - you know - I want to reduce systematic evil.

Both liberals and conservatives want an increase in the state - for their own pet projects. The real clue to the question is that neither side ever reduces the work of the other side. i.e. while acting seemingly in opposition they are actually in cahoots.

You keep repeating this false mantra just as you kept repeating the absurdity that it was easier for a child to get drugs than a beer.

Conservatives do not want to increase the size of government, they want government to go back to it's proper role. The Federal Government should be confined to Federal issues, and the State Governments should be left alone to administer their own individual states.

There is a distinct difference between wanting the government to be EVERYTHING (Liberal) and NOTHING (Libertarian.) Conservatives want the CORRECT level of Government. Not too much, but not too little either.

[MSimon]

Well we are in fact making progress. There are prohibitions people will NATURALLY obey and others they will not.

The latter ought to be taken off the books because they cause disrespect for ALL law. It was one of the reasons we ended alcohol prohibition. The LAW was getting a bad name. Which was leading to a general breakdown of Law and Order.

You can't just do one thing.