Dimwitted Social Conservatives

[Diogenes]

I was willing to listen to you on several topics as you usually provide reasonable critiques that I can often look up until this comment. This is not consent, this is instinct much as a dog who jumps on a stuffed animal if it so gets between its legs. Your failure to distinguish between what is animal instinct and what is consent and the way you make this point is appauling.

I am not understanding your objection. I would assume you care not if a woman pleasures herself. I likewise assume you care not if an animal pleasures themselves. Your objection seems to be to them doing it together. Why you think that this should be more appalling than Homosexuality I do not comprehend. It actually has fewer disease vectors because of the species difference.

I argue that Beastiality is currently at the socially acceptance level that Homosexuality was in the 1960s. Given enough time, (and media pressure) people will accept anything. In any case, the Animal is certainly not being abused, so in a newly secularized society, what is the problem?

I believe Homosexuality was outlawed by Judeo-Christian society for two reasons.

1. People with unbounded sexual appetites are not likely to stop at just homosexuality, and can more easily be induced into far worse. John Wayne Gayce and Charles Ng come to mind.

2. The Disease vector. Typical Homosexuality is EXTREMELY dangerous both to the practitioner and those that come into intimate contact with them. In ancient times, it would have been noticed that people who engage in this practice would often become sickly and die well before their time.

There is a dynamic at work of which I don't believe most people have any knowledge. It is not new territory. This has been done over and over again.

[Diogenes]

Homosexuality may have a genetic component, but that does not mean it must conclusively result in homosexuality on the part of an individual, just as in the case of other genetic disorders, one copy of a bad gene does not necessarily mean that gene will express itself.

In particular in the case of bisexuals, there are people who do have a "choice" between pursuing a gay lifestyle and trying to settle down in a traditional straight relationship. I agree that there's often a mixture of nature and nurture in determining behaviour. And, I can believe that abuse during childhood can cause serious confusion in a person, but there seems to be a core component of the homosexual population which is genuinely homosexual and can't change. I'm fine with letting them do their thing.

Let's take it from the opposite angle. I heard a story one time (I think it was in a newspaper or magazine), I don't know if it's true, that back in the 70s, when artificial insemination came in, that a lesbian couple and a homosexual couple got the procedure done and produced a son. This child was raised in the gay community but nonetheless turned out straight. So, he was biologically tuned to be straight and couldn't be changed by his environment. I can believe that too.

I do not know if you have studied the subject of Homosexuality. Monogamous relationships are the extreme exception. If Homosexuals make up 2% of the overall population, than monogamous homosexuals make up probably 2% of the homosexual population. The vast bulk are promiscuous on a level that heterosexual nymphomaniacs and satyromaniacs can't even begin to attain.

Yes, I know promiscuity is rife in many homosexual communities. What I haven't seen any adequate studies on is whether this is biological or the result of the gay culture that developed in those communities. While orientation seems to have a genetic basis, levels of promiscuity seem to be much more easily influenced by culture - look at Roman orgies, for example. Gay people who want to get married would appear to be rejecting promiscuity.

Also, during various university studies and at work I have known people who turned out to be gay. Just judging on my personal observations, a number of them do not seem to be promiscuous. Of course, I don't know what they do in their spare time, but a few are actually quite conservative in their attitudes, dress, etc.

sliding scale

Yes, I agree that the left has tried to impose a sliding scale on all sorts of issues. Someone might have views that would be considered liberal in the 1950s but would now be called ultra-conservative. In fact, let's take this discussion as an example.

What I said originally was that although homosexuality is not entirely "normal," (at a genetic level it is an aberration), since completely gay people can't change, they should be allowed/encouraged to live as normalized a life as possible. Gay marriage is better than promiscuity and the spread of disease. That position would get me attacked by some of the leftists I know. I would basically be screamed at that I have to accept that there is no such thing as genetic aberration, that it's completely normal, that I have to accept that homosexuals have been oppressed throughout history and apologize for being a straight white man. I would probably be called a bigot and a fascist into the equation. So I'm well aware of the sliding scale trick they try to pull.

My position is simply that I'm not going to mirror their behaviour. I'm not going to say that because they try to sneak in a sliding scale, I have to reject any kind of change in attitudes and insist on holding views I might have held were this the 1950s or 1960s. Since there appears to be a large level of biological determinant in homosexuality, I'll tolerate reasonable people for being who they are, regardless of the extremists.

*Edit* - I shouldn't just say "would be" screamed at by the leftists - I try to avoid being dragged into any such discussions with people I know are extremists, but sometimes they demand your opinion and I have been attacked by leftists for not being "accepting enough" in the way I view this subject.

A well thought out response. Some pretty good arguments. Best rebuttal I think i've seen. There does seem to be a genetic component, but whether it manifests itself in the form of instinct or inclination I don't know. It has long been apparent that the human code contains the algorithms for both male and female. For part of gestation, a fetus can go either way, but at some point switches are thrown and cells grow that would not otherwise, and other cells disappear that would otherwise remain.

It shall not be a surprise to me if it is discovered that the human code algorithms occasionally leave ambiguity or mismatched components in the brain chemistry. But do they hardwire sexuality, or is it a function of repeated external stimuli? Given the malleability of the human brain, I suspect that the instances of attraction to the same sex is usually dependent on the conditions of childhood, with the brain chemistry mostly being an inclination.

As with the case of the young boy who wanted to be a girl, I immediately asked: "How would he know?" He has never been anything but a boy, and he doesn't even know what a girl is, so how would he know that he wants to be one? (And this is but one example.) I see external stimuli at work in this.

Anyway, good points. Stuff for me to think about.

[ScottL]

I was willing to listen to you on several topics as you usually provide reasonable critiques that I can often look up until this comment. This is not consent, this is instinct much as a dog who jumps on a stuffed animal if it so gets between its legs. Your failure to distinguish between what is animal instinct and what is consent and the way you make this point is appauling.

I am not understanding your objection. I would assume you care not if a woman pleasures herself. I likewise assume you care not if an animal pleasures themselves. Your objection seems to be to them doing it together. Why you think that this should be more appalling than Homosexuality I do not comprehend. It actually has fewer disease vectors because of the species difference.

I argue that Beastiality is currently at the socially acceptance level that Homosexuality was in the 1960s. Given enough time, (and media pressure) people will accept anything. In any case, the Animal is certainly not being abused, so in a newly secularized society, what is the problem?

I believe Homosexuality was outlawed by Judeo-Christian society for two reasons.

1. People with unbounded sexual appetites are not likely to stop at just homosexuality, and can more easily be induced into far worse. John Wayne Gayce and Charles Ng come to mind.

2. The Disease vector. Typical Homosexuality is EXTREMELY dangerous both to the practitioner and those that come into intimate contact with them. In ancient times, it would have been noticed that people who engage in this practice would often become sickly and die well before their time.

There is a dynamic at work of which I don't believe most people have any knowledge. It is not new territory. This has been done over and over again.

The animal cannot give consent so no they shouldn't be doing anything together. As for animals not having disease vectors, H1N1, SARS, HIV/AIDS...The risks in homosexual intercourse are the same risks in straight couples. Interactions include vaginal, oral, anal, or hand, all of which are committed by straight couples and straight promiscuous persons.

1. That assumes homosexuality is an unbound sexual appetite, this premise can be proven false by anyone within the gay community committing to a monogamous relationship. Evidence leads us to believe that such sexual appetites are just as likely and do occur within straight persons (David Duchovny for example) There are known neurological disorders that increase sexual appetite.

2. Disease vectors/risk are the same for straight couples as they are for homosexuals. You're presuming a lot with little evidence to back your arguments at all.

The truth is for every presumption you make, I can find a counter using straight persons as examples.

[ScottL]

I was willing to listen to you on several topics as you usually provide reasonable critiques that I can often look up until this comment. This is not consent, this is instinct much as a dog who jumps on a stuffed animal if it so gets between its legs. Your failure to distinguish between what is animal instinct and what is consent and the way you make this point is appauling.

I am not understanding your objection. I would assume you care not if a woman pleasures herself. I likewise assume you care not if an animal pleasures themselves. Your objection seems to be to them doing it together. Why you think that this should be more appalling than Homosexuality I do not comprehend. It actually has fewer disease vectors because of the species difference.

I argue that Beastiality is currently at the socially acceptance level that Homosexuality was in the 1960s. Given enough time, (and media pressure) people will accept anything. In any case, the Animal is certainly not being abused, so in a newly secularized society, what is the problem?

I believe Homosexuality was outlawed by Judeo-Christian society for two reasons.

1. People with unbounded sexual appetites are not likely to stop at just homosexuality, and can more easily be induced into far worse. John Wayne Gayce and Charles Ng come to mind.

2. The Disease vector. Typical Homosexuality is EXTREMELY dangerous both to the practitioner and those that come into intimate contact with them. In ancient times, it would have been noticed that people who engage in this practice would often become sickly and die well before their time.

There is a dynamic at work of which I don't believe most people have any knowledge. It is not new territory. This has been done over and over again.

The animal cannot give consent so no they shouldn't be doing anything together. As for animals not having disease vectors, H1N1, SARS, HIV/AIDS...The risks in homosexual intercourse are the same risks in straight couples. Interactions include vaginal, oral, anal, or hand, all of which are committed by straight couples and straight promiscuous persons.

1. That assumes homosexuality is an unbound sexual appetite, this premise can be proven false by anyone within the gay community committing to a monogamous relationship. Evidence leads us to believe that such sexual appetites are just as likely and do occur within straight persons (David Duchovny for example) There are known neurological disorders that increase sexual appetite.

2. Disease vectors/risk are the same for straight couples as they are for homosexuals. You're presuming a lot with little evidence to back your arguments at all.

The truth is for every presumption you make, I can find a counter using straight persons as examples. I'm going to bow out of this conversation though as you (Diogenes) have crossed a line with me.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Getting back to the original topic (sort of), this article ties together the decline of marriage, a lack of proper father figures for young males, and the outsourcing of much of the industry in North America and Britain to Asia as reasons behind increasing crime rates and the riots in the U.K. Note that there are similarities between what just happened in the U.K. and violent flash mobs in Philadelphia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le2130733/

[Diogenes]

I am not understanding your objection. I would assume you care not if a woman pleasures herself. I likewise assume you care not if an animal pleasures themselves. Your objection seems to be to them doing it together. Why you think that this should be more appalling than Homosexuality I do not comprehend. It actually has fewer disease vectors because of the species difference.

I argue that Beastiality is currently at the socially acceptance level that Homosexuality was in the 1960s. Given enough time, (and media pressure) people will accept anything. In any case, the Animal is certainly not being abused, so in a newly secularized society, what is the problem?

I believe Homosexuality was outlawed by Judeo-Christian society for two reasons.

1. People with unbounded sexual appetites are not likely to stop at just homosexuality, and can more easily be induced into far worse. John Wayne Gayce and Charles Ng come to mind.

2. The Disease vector. Typical Homosexuality is EXTREMELY dangerous both to the practitioner and those that come into intimate contact with them. In ancient times, it would have been noticed that people who engage in this practice would often become sickly and die well before their time.

There is a dynamic at work of which I don't believe most people have any knowledge. It is not new territory. This has been done over and over again.

The animal cannot give consent so no they shouldn't be doing anything together. As for animals not having disease vectors, H1N1, SARS, HIV/AIDS...The risks in homosexual intercourse are the same risks in straight couples. Interactions include vaginal, oral, anal, or hand, all of which are committed by straight couples and straight promiscuous persons.

1. That assumes homosexuality is an unbound sexual appetite, this premise can be proven false by anyone within the gay community committing to a monogamous relationship. Evidence leads us to believe that such sexual appetites are just as likely and do occur within straight persons (David Duchovny for example) There are known neurological disorders that increase sexual appetite.

2. Disease vectors/risk are the same for straight couples as they are for homosexuals. You're presuming a lot with little evidence to back your arguments at all.

The truth is for every presumption you make, I can find a counter using straight persons as examples. I'm going to bow out of this conversation though as you (Diogenes) have crossed a line with me.

I hate to be tedious, but if you are going to bow out, why respond with a rebuttal? Given enough time, (and social conditioning) you will find the one thing no more objectionable than the other.

Also, as far as lines go, why see an artificial line when there isn't one? (One of my long standing discussion topics is the tendency of people to perceive lines (such as between fiscal and social) where none in fact exist. They are merely figments of subjective perception.)

[Diogenes]

Getting back to the original topic (sort of), this article ties together the decline of marriage, a lack of proper father figures for young males, and the outsourcing of much of the industry in North America and Britain to Asia as reasons behind increasing crime rates and the riots in the U.K. Note that there are similarities between what just happened in the U.K. and violent flash mobs in Philadelphia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le2130733/

Great article! I find the conditions it describes to be the entirely predictable outcome of pretending there is a difference between fiscal and social policy. Here is another very good article regarding this.

Take our Prime Minister, who is once again defrauding far too many people. He uses his expensive voice, his expensive clothes, his well-learned tone of public-school command, to give the impression of being an effective and decisive person. But it is all false. He has no real idea of what to do. He thinks the actual solutions to the problem are ‘fascist’. Deep down, he still wants to ‘understand’ the hoodies.

Say to him that naughty children should be smacked at home and caned in school, that the police (and responsible adults) should be free to wallop louts and vandals caught in the act, that the police should return to preventive foot patrols, that prisons should be austere places of hard work, plain food and discipline without TV sets or semi-licit drugs, and that wrongdoers should be sent to them when they first take to crime, not when they are already habitual crooks, and he will throw up his well-tailored arms in horror at your barbarity.

Say to him that divorce should be made very difficult and that the state should be energetically in favour of stable, married families with fathers (and cease forthwith to subsidise families without fathers) and he will smirk patronisingly and regard you as a pitiable lunatic.
Say to him that mass immigration should be stopped and reversed, and that those who refuse any of the huge number of jobs which are then available should be denied benefits of any kind, and he will gibber in shock.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1V0ZqdfOw

[CaptainBeowulf]

Hitchens often makes good points. As he says, he's been forecasting this for years.

Have you read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? Far different beast than the rather cartoonish 1990s movie, although I like the movie for what it was. Heinlein appears to have already seen the writing on the wall back in the 1950s. In the book he suggests that generations of spoiled youth would be raised in the west, leading to a near-collapse and the ultimate creation of the vaguely authoritarian society of the Starship Troopers, where "service equals citizenship."

I take the book as being as much a philosophical treatise (along the lines of Plato's The Republic) as a novel. It's novelized philosophy. While the authoritarian society in it runs in some ways against my more libertarian instincts, it makes some good points. I don't remember Heinlein's prose exactly, but I like his example of raising a dog.

He basically says that you don't raise a dog by being nice to it and not punishing it when it soils the floor inside a house while it is a puppy, yet turn around and shoot it in the head the first time it does so as an adult. The same is true of human youth. Children have to be taught a sense of discipline and responsibility as they grow up, and understand that actions have consequences. By the time they turn 18 or 19 it's already too late to teach many of them. At that point, jailing them just makes them hate "the system" more, rather than teaching them anything. Of course, you have to punish them, and some will learn something, but... the lack of male role models, functional families, and punishments for transgressions at a younger age is the real problem.

[Diogenes]

Hitchens often makes good points. As he says, he's been forecasting this for years.

Have you read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? Far different beast than the rather cartoonish 1990s movie, although I like the movie for what it was. Heinlein appears to have already seen the writing on the wall back in the 1950s. In the book he suggests that generations of spoiled youth would be raised in the west, leading to a near-collapse and the ultimate creation of the vaguely authoritarian society of the Starship Troopers, where "service equals citizenship."

Absolutely. I have read a lot of Heinlein's books. He was one of my favorite SciFi authors. I tend to agree with him about the citizenship thing. Heinlein was brilliant, but lost it towards the end. Did you ever read "Mark of the Beast"?

I take the book as being as much a philosophical treatise (along the lines of Plato's The Republic) as a novel. It's novelized philosophy. While the authoritarian society in it runs in some ways against my more libertarian instincts, it makes some good points. I don't remember Heinlein's prose exactly, but I like his example of raising a dog.

He basically says that you don't raise a dog by being nice to it and not punishing it when it soils the floor inside a house while it is a puppy, yet turn around and shoot it in the head the first time it does so as an adult. The same is true of human youth. Children have to be taught a sense of discipline and responsibility as they grow up, and understand that actions have consequences. By the time they turn 18 or 19 it's already too late to teach many of them. At that point, jailing them just makes them hate "the system" more, rather than teaching them anything. Of course, you have to punish them, and some will learn something, but... the lack of male role models, functional families, and punishments for transgressions at a younger age is the real problem.

That is what we call "Social Conservatism." I am fond of quoting Edmund Burke:

"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

If you are not familiar with him, he is AWESOME. He is called the father of Social Conservatism, while Adam Smith is known as the father of Fiscal Conservatism. The two men were contemporaries, colleagues and friends. Their ideas dovetail nicely with each other. Note my tagline?

Peruse his comments and see if you disagree with them.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

[Diogenes]

Another bit of wisdom from Heinlein.


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." — Robert A. Heinlein

[Diogenes]

More wisdom, this time from G.K. Chesterton.


In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

[KitemanSA]

Heinlein was brilliant, but lost it towards the end. Did you ever read "Mark of the Beast"?

No, but I did read "The Number of the Beast". Not amoung his best, but still fun.

[JLawson]

Another bit of wisdom from Heinlein.


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." — Robert A. Heinlein

Obama's been having a lot of that lately. But I'm sure there's no correlation between the insistence on high-cost, heavily subsidized, low-density green energy, skyrocketing usable energy prices, demonization of the 'rich', beating on corporations, insane banking regulations, and lots of borrowing and the 'bad luck' the country's experiencing economically...

[JLawson]

Heinlein was brilliant, but lost it towards the end. Did you ever read "Mark of the Beast"?

No, but I did read "The Number of the Beast". Not amoung his best, but still fun.

It needed editing - badly. The image clarity you got from his earlier works was spotty at best.

Ah, well... no more from that pen, sadly.

[MSimon]

Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.

The Futurist

Clearly whoever it is that you're quoting hasn't considered conservative fiscal policy contradictions.

You mean the contradiction in "you earned the money you get to keep it"?