[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Freedom cannot exist without Virtue (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:51:14 PM EDT
|
|
embed Fail
|
|
Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin All due respect, but BF was something referred to as a "libertine" back in his day. 
Of the Founding Fathers, he probably most closely held what we now call libertarian views. In all respects, though...hell of a guy. Fearless. |
|
Quoted: Well, he had enough problems with the environment of Ceti Alpha 5Quoted: define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin And Khan would have never created a society with our concept of rights and rule of law. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin All due respect, but BF was something referred to as a "libertine" back in his day.
Of the Founding Fathers, he probably most closely held what we now call libertarian views. In all respects, though...hell of a guy. Fearless. He had some silly ideas, like using bows and arrows to fight the Revolution. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin All due respect, but BF was something referred to as a "libertine" back in his day.
Of the Founding Fathers, he probably most closely held what we now call libertarian views. In all respects, though...hell of a guy. Fearless. He had some silly ideas, like using bows and arrows to fight the Revolution. Yeah, but I'll be the guy using his Polish M44 as the first rifle when SHTF....I have the least ammo for it. 
|
| Virtue undergirds liberty, something a lot of libertarians cannot seem to understand. This was a big debate in the hey-day of the post-war conservative movement, with those who identified themselves as libertarians or classical liberals tending to argue that philosophically requiring virtue was dangerous to freedom or that virtue was irrelevant when it came to having and maintaining freedom, while those who identified themselves more as traditional conservatives or neoliberals arguing that virtue was necessary and in many cases (regarding the traditional conservatives) that it could come at some sacrifice in liberty if necessary, with the fusionist conservatives arguing that the two were equally important and that sacrificing one negated the other and vice-versa and calling for a balance to be met. It is reading the old National Review articles from that debate that took place in the 1950s and 1960s (and a bit in the 1970s as well) that got me to subscribe to that magazine (only to be disappointed that it had become more strongly oriented toward neoconservatism with Buckley not having much of a say in anything aside from his little section). |
|
"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute."
Ayn Rand |
|
Quoted: "Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Ayn Rand The acceptance of reason as an absolute is not a good thing and Rand was pretty lonely on the Right when it came to that. Such views typified Continental thinkers who were Leftists or proto-Leftist, or at the least greatly contributed to the formation of those sorts of ideas. America is descended from the British tradition, which also eschews Rand's position. |
|
The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776 We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798 |
|
Quoted:
The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776 We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798 Amen. |
|
Quoted: define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin Might want to define freedom, as well, while we're at it. I would say the statement is false. American Indians had ultimate freedom, in that they could do whatever they wished. (Setting aside tribal laws, customs, etc of which one could walk away from by choice if one were willing to live by their own hand). They would hardly be called virtuous, especially by the founders. One man's virtue is another's shackles. Even the founders knew that you can't legislate morality. I would say that the following statement would be closer to being accurate: Civilization cannot exist devoid of virtue. (Virtue meaning morals/ sense of right and wrong and having nothing to do with religion.) |
|
Quoted:
Truth. Do bad the "fuck social conservatism" branch of the gop doesn't realize it. QFT. There seems to be a divide between social conservatvies and libertarians about this... social conservatives want the government to force a particular viewpoint of morality on you, and a lot of libertarians respond by saying we should be completely immoral and irresponsible. The correct answer is in between those too extremes. |
|
See my sig line. It's been my sig line forever for a reason:
Because only free people act virtuously, and only virtuous people are capable of true freedom. Virtue means: - Taking care of your obligations - Living up to your word - Respecting the rights and freedoms of others as individuals - Never claiming right to what you do not own - Minding your own business - Personal initiative - Personal responsibility Etc. A person who makes his decisions and then lives with the consequences of them without imposition upon anyone else is pretty damn virtuous. |
|
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin The kind of liberty we've known here in the United States is due to a shared value system rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When John Adams saw our Constitution he said it was only good for a "moral, religious people", and that it was "wholly inadequate for any other." Why? Because never before had the people been given so much liberty while retraints were placed upon the government. Picture liberty and order on two inversely proportional scales. That's how they normally work. North Korea and Cuba have a high degree of order because they restrict liberty. Going in the other direction, the French Revolution had lots of liberty, but very little order. Most reasonable governments try to balance the two. Here we've seen both a high level of liberty and a high level of order in our society. Why? Let's compare the French and American Revolutions. They occurred in the same period of history with relatively the same general goals. In revolutionary France the predominant worldview was secular humanism. Here it was founded in Judeo-Christian values. This resulted in a comparatively orderly society here, while France experienced a period of its history known as The Terror. What Adams was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. Understanding human nature, Adams knew that this principle of self restraint resulting from values rooted in the Christian faith was essential to achieve the goals of maximum liberty and maximum order. (Edited to correct attribution - I got in a hurry and said Madison when I meant Adams  )
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin The kind of liberty we've known here in the United States is due to a shared value system rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When Madison saw our Constitution he said it was only good for a "moral, religious people", and that it was "wholly inadequate for any other." Why? Because never before had the people been given so much liberty while retraints were placed upon the government. Picture liberty and order on two inversely proportional scales. That's how they normally work. North Korea and Cuba have a high degree of order because they restrict liberty. Going in the other direction, the French Revolution had lots of liberty, but very little order. Most reasonable governments try to balance the two. Here we've seen both a high level of liberty and a high level of order in our society. Why? Let's compare the French and American Revolutions. They occurred in the same period of history with relatively the same general goals. In revolutionary France the predominant worldview was secular humanism. Here it was founded in Judeo-Christian values. This resulted in a comparatively orderly society here, while France experienced a period of its history known as The Terror. What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. Understanding human nature, Madison knew that this principle of self restraint resulting from values rooted in the Christian faith was essential to achieve the goals of maximum liberty and maximum order. This. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, he had enough problems with the environment of Ceti Alpha 5
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin And Khan would have never created a society with our concept of rights and rule of law. Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, he had enough problems with the environment of Ceti Alpha 5Quoted: define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin And Khan would have never created a society with our concept of rights and rule of law. Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? He tasks me, he tasks me and I shall have him! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, he had enough problems with the environment of Ceti Alpha 5
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin And Khan would have never created a society with our concept of rights and rule of law. Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? I was amused.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776 We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798 Amen. Came here to post that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Truth. Do bad the "fuck social conservatism" branch of the gop doesn't realize it. QFT. There seems to be a divide between social conservatvies and libertarians about this... social conservatives want the government to force a particular viewpoint of morality on you, and a lot of libertarians respond by saying we should be completely immoral and irresponsible. The correct answer is in between those too extremes. No they don't - please provide an example. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, he had enough problems with the environment of Ceti Alpha 5
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin And Khan would have never created a society with our concept of rights and rule of law. Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? No - it was REAL FUNNY 
|
|
Quoted:
"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Ayn Rand Rationality is a virtue, and not an important one (like honor, and integrity, and humility, and selflessness). It cannot, by any stretch, be considered the sole virtue, as Rand would have you believe. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin All due respect, but BF was something referred to as a "libertine" back in his day.
Of the Founding Fathers, he probably most closely held what we now call libertarian views. In all respects, though...hell of a guy. Fearless. Public libraries, public fire departments, public post offices... today's libertarians would accuse the man of being a socialist. He was the original American "Big City Thinker" in an era dominated by agricultural/rural leadership. |
|
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. Very interesting observation. I couldn't help but think of the open carry debate as I read that. "Legal" and "appropriate" are not synonyms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. And when we have obscene gay pride parades (Hey - what two people do in their bedroom is their business. When you bring it into public and shove it into people's faces it crosses the line) and women having 15 kids by three different guys, we are in a period when people lack the basic core values to feel shame for their actions. They revel in what used to be cause for embarrassment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. Very interesting observation. I couldn't help but think of the open carry debate as I read that. "Legal" and "appropriate" are not synonyms. Don't know if I'd go too far with that example in the details, because there's a LOT of facets to the subject (the constitutionality of OC, the self-defense angle, etc.), but overall, yes––just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Simpler example: Fighting. Used to be schoolyard fights were handled, done, and unless someone really lost control, nothing was said about it. If it were a bullying situation, the victim would kick the bully's ass, the bullying would stop, and most times they'd be friends from then on. Except between more kids having less self-control, parents demanding "satisfaction" because "my baby couldn't have started the fight!", and the lack of restraint to keep the fight to fists and not weapons, we now have the victims being punished for defending themselves (after all, they started it), zero-tolerance weapons policies, and laws being considered that will essentially limit Internet conversations to "have a nice day," for fear of being labelled a cyberbully. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. And when we have obscene gay pride parades (Hey - what two people do in their bedroom is their business. When you bring it into public and shove it into people's faces it crosses the line) and women having 15 kids by three different guys, we are in a period when people lack the basic core values to feel shame for their actions. They revel in what used to be cause for embarrassment. Yep. One of THE most valuable tools a society has is shame/embarrassment. Unfortunately, that's societally driven (bottom-up), not legally driven (top-down). Take your baby-daddy example. Used to be shameful to have a kid out of wedlock. That had a couple of useful effects––encouraged the family unit, kept the number of single-parent households down, limited the number of people on welfare, kept STDs down, etc. "Good girls" simply didn't do that kind of thing, and true gentlemen didn't ask for it. Now, the "I should have sex all the time" mindset has had a negative effect on almost every aspect of society––family, child development, health, welfare roles, etc. And laws that made sense even 10 years ago is getting people in trouble because the law doesn't care that you're sending photos to your boyfriend, it only cares that by law, you're underage, so BAM! he's now a child pornographer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What Madison was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. One of the by-products of a loss of self-restraint by society is an encroaching set of laws that limit speech, actions, and eventually thought, as the law tries to cover the gap in behavior created when that self-restraint goes away. So, while you used to be able to use ostracism, shame and embarrassment to control those few individuals who did lack self-restraint, now you have to have a law that attempts to do the same thing. And since laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences (since their black & white nature removes discretion), that's how you get such stupidity as zero-tolerance laws in school, etc. And when we have obscene gay pride parades (Hey - what two people do in their bedroom is their business. When you bring it into public and shove it into people's faces it crosses the line) and women having 15 kids by three different guys, we are in a period when people lack the basic core values to feel shame for their actions. They revel in what used to be cause for embarrassment. If they were obscene, they would get arrested, wouldn't they? Or is it only obscene because they are gay? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
define virtue For Genghis Khan virtue was likely a whole different critter than for Benjamin Franklin The kind of liberty we've known here in the United States is due to a shared value system rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When John Adams saw our Constitution he said it was only good for a "moral, religious people", and that it was "wholly inadequate for any other." Why? Because never before had the people been given so much liberty while retraints were placed upon the government. Picture liberty and order on two inversely proportional scales. That's how they normally work. North Korea and Cuba have a high degree of order because they restrict liberty. Going in the other direction, the French Revolution had lots of liberty, but very little order. Most reasonable governments try to balance the two. Here we've seen both a high level of liberty and a high level of order in our society. Why? Let's compare the French and American Revolutions. They occurred in the same period of history with relatively the same general goals. In revolutionary France the predominant worldview was secular humanism. Here it was founded in Judeo-Christian values. This resulted in a comparatively orderly society here, while France experienced a period of its history known as The Terror. What Adams was getting at is if people are given that much liberty without the government restraining the people's actions, the people must be self-restraining. This is a key point. In France people saw themselves as being accountable to no one higher than themselves. Here, people saw themselves as being accountable to God. Understanding human nature, Adams knew that this principle of self restraint resulting from values rooted in the Christian faith was essential to achieve the goals of maximum liberty and maximum order. (Edited to correct attribution - I got in a hurry and said Madison when I meant Adams )Well stated. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Ayn Rand The acceptance of reason as an absolute is not a good thing and Rand was pretty lonely on the Right when it came to that. Such views typified Continental thinkers who were Leftists or proto-Leftist, or at the least greatly contributed to the formation of those sorts of ideas. America is descended from the British tradition, which also eschews Rand's position. You're kidding, right? I mean, this has to be a joke, right? Reason as an absolute is not a good thing??? What is a good thing then, anti-reason? 
Your following statement was nothing more than gibberish. How was Rand lonely on the Right? Because her and Buckley didn't hang out together that makes her lonely? M'kay... (Incidentally I once read a funny anecdote about a drunken Buckley calling up Rand and harassing her. I can only imagine her reaction to being teased that way. I'm sure she was horrified but it was probably a hilarious exchange.) As for the rest, if you're referring to different definitions of the word "virtue" over the years, well, yeah, it's been defined various ways. Machiavelli's definition of virtue wouldn't jibe with Rand's definition probably (and Machiavelli was all about virtue believe it or not). This isn't to say that Rand's definition of virtue isn't relevant today, it is. You can keep your British tradition, I'll take what works.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Truth. Do bad the "fuck social conservatism" branch of the gop doesn't realize it. QFT. There seems to be a divide between social conservatvies and libertarians about this... social conservatives want the government to force a particular viewpoint of morality on you, and a lot of libertarians respond by saying we should be completely immoral and irresponsible. The correct answer is in between those too extremes. Wait, what?
Personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions form the core of libertarian philosophy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Ayn Rand Rationality is a virtue, and not an important one (like honor, and integrity, and humility, and selflessness). It cannot, by any stretch, be considered the sole virtue, as Rand would have you believe. How can you have virtue if you don't have a rational basis for it? What are you going to base your standard of virtue on, the irrational??? Good luck with that. |
|
Quoted:
If they were obscene, they would get arrested, wouldn't they? Or is it only obscene because they are gay? I've seen pictures of the events. As a general rule, the things that go on are not G-rated. And you apparently missed my first staement. If they keep it in the bedroom, it's their business. If they bring it into the public they should be prepared for criticism. For the record, yes, I believe it is an unnatural act. I have no interest in seeing any of it. One final comment: I think you're making my point.
|
|
Quoted: See my sig line. It's been my sig line forever for a reason: Because only free people act virtuously, and only virtuous people are capable of true freedom. Virtue means: - Taking care of your obligations - Living up to your word - Respecting the rights and freedoms of others as individuals - Never claiming right to what you do not own - Minding your own business - Personal initiative - Personal responsibility Etc. A person who makes his decisions and then lives with the consequences of them without imposition upon anyone else is pretty damn virtuous. What are you, some sort of libertarian? Why do you hate God? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." Ayn Rand Rationality is a virtue, and not an important one (like honor, and integrity, and humility, and selflessness). It cannot, by any stretch, be considered the sole virtue, as Rand would have you believe. How can you have virtue if you don't have a rational basis for it? What are you going to base your standard of virtue on, the irrational??? Good luck with that. You completely missed my point. Her comment is rationality is THE ONLY virtue. It is not. It is one of many. The Boy Scout Law: Trustworthy. Helpful. Friendly. Courteous. Kind. Obedient. Cheerful. Thrifty. Brave. Clean. Reverent. Rationality: not on the list. Air Force Core Values: Integrity First. Service Before Self. Excellence in All We Do. Rationality: not on the list. Army Core Values: Loyalty. Duty. Respect. Selfless Service. Honor. Integrity. Personal Courage. Rationality: not on the list. List of virtues. Rationality: not on the list. Catholic Seven Virtues: Prudence. Justice. Restraint (or temperance). Courage. Faith. Hope. Love (charity). Rationality: not on the list. Ben Franklin's List of Virtues: Temperance. Silence. Order. Resolution. Frugality. Industry. Sincerity. Justice. Moderation. Cleanliness. Tranquility. Chastity. Humility. Rationality: Not on the list. Islamic virtues: Righteousness. Generosity. Gratitude. Contentment. Humility. Courtesy. Purity. Good Speech. Respect. Wisdom. Tolerance. Justice. Mercy. Dignity. Courage. Firmness. Frankness. Hope. Patience. Perseverence. Discipline. Self-Restraint. Moderation. Prudence. Unity. Frugality. Sincerity. Responsibility. Loyalty. Trustworthiness. Honesty. Repentance. Spirituality. Rationality: not on the list. You cannot rationalize why someone should be courteous, or humble, or generous, in the context of Objectivism. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they were obscene, they would get arrested, wouldn't they? Or is it only obscene because they are gay? I've seen pictures of the events. As a general rule, the things that go on are not G-rated. And you apparently missed my first staement. If they keep it in the bedroom, it's their business. If they bring it into the public they should be prepared for criticism. For the record, yes, I believe it is an unnatural act. I have no interest in seeing any of it. One final comment: I think you're making my point. I too have seen pictures, but I have also seen non-g-rated, suggestive dancing by women, and people don't blow a gasket over it. And I don't recall anyone ever telling those women to 'keep it in the bedroom'. Not that I'd want them to. And what point of your's was I making? |