Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What motivates you??
Topic Started: Nov 1 2009, 04:08 AM (1,047 Views)
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Sedulius
 
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help.

I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others.

I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now.
In another thread didn't you give the advice that duelling and fighting were desirable and signs of a good man though? Why do you feel bad about duelling and fighting then? I'm not trying to anger you; in fact I'm not seeing hypocrisy when you are talking about things like duelling and associated virtues such as bravery or strength.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 5 2009, 03:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 03:30 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 03:14 PM
Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 02:57 PM
Atticus
Nov 3 2009, 12:18 AM
:rolleyes:

Hypocritical?
You know what, enough with the fucking hypocrite bullshit. I'm not giving anymore "I'm only human" speeches.
Will you also stop giving the "have mercy and forgiveness but if the law would permit then I'm going to break some bones" speeches, or will you keep giving those speeches?
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help.

I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others.

I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now.
Can I tickle your side and make it better? :unsure: :shy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 04:34 AM
Nag Ehgoeg
 
Story

That story made no sense in the context of what we're discussing.
It was in response to your assertation that idleness does not breed idleness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 04:34 AM
Nag Ehgoeg
 
Fixed that for you.

Would any of the industrious not wish to give up their trade in order to exchange places with the undeserving rich?

Offer any man a winning lotto ticket and you'll not see it turned down.

It is not, in this society, better to be hardworking than to be rich.

Is a rich heiress truly undeserving of her inherited wealth?

Is a rich heiress any more undeserving of her wealth than a prodigy is undeserving of his superior genes of intelligence, which he inherited from his parents through no effort of his own? Is a rich heiress any more undeserving of her wealth than a beautiful woman is undeserving of her superior genes of beauty, which she inherited from her parents through no effort of her own?

In this world, above all else, it is best to make the most of every opportunity you have, whether wealth or genetic advantages or even modest financial security. That does not mean one shouldn't have pity for those who were born with nothing, or who are born with disadvantages and illnesses.

Give alms but don't give up the possibility to work for your children's financial well-being, so that they may enjoy more advantages than you did.

As an aside - work, labor, and exertion are not the highest ideals and shouldn't be. We only work to emancipate ourselves from work, so that we may have leisure, though for some lucky people their work and their leisure are the same thing. We aren't in the Garden of Eden any more, but we want to get back to it - to the laborless, blissful, infinite existence. That is the only reason the post-Fall civilization exists. That is the only reason for all our toil and technologies and complexities and hassles in life.
Yes, she is less worthy.

Brains, even good looks, are useful to others on their own merit. Inherited money is not. Money is useful to society, but it'd be just as useful in the hands of others more deserving.

Work, labour and exertion are the highest ideals because it is work that drives humanity forward. Without work there would be no progress or luxury. The reason people can eat better than Emperors is because we've worked hard to create such a society.

Quote:
 
Nag Ehgoeg
 
The wealthy heiress represents nothing but the downward spiral of loss of capital (as nicely demonstrated by your original example above).

How is capital lost in my example? I can only see new capital produced where there was nothing before. I see new factories, new technologies, new arts and crafts, new inventions, new endeavors.

Money is flittered away from the person who earned it by the heiress on useless things. Money that could have been used more prudently to make more factories, techonologies arts and crafts and inventions.

Quote:
 
Nag Ehgoeg
 
Casually flittering away money does not improve society. Even the movement of capital away from the unworthy heiress to the industrious money makers does little to benefit society when that money is spent on luxuries - it serves only to turn economic production away from products which are useful to man and society and towards unneccessary things (which can only drive up prices of necessities due to decreased supply).

Nag, when capital and productive energy are directed toward luxuries, necessities don't become more expensive. Rather, luxuries become necessities - luxuries become cheap, plentiful, and widely available. But if capital is not directed toward the luxuries, there will be no incentive for profit-driven entrepreneurs to improve, mass-produce, and disseminate those luxuries.

20 years ago you could decry a rich snob buying useless $5,000 computers for his house, when there were children in this world who did not even have access to books! Today you have a computer, possibly many computers, in your home.

100 years ago you could decry the rich enjoying excessively fabulous banquets, while people in the streets starved. Today you can go to an ordinary buffet restaurant and eat better-tasting foods in greater quantities than Kings and Emperors ever did in the past.

400 years ago you could decry the rich wearing breezy, airy garments imported from across oceans, while most people owned a few wool outfits. Today you could wear any type of clothing you want, in any color or style or material you wish.

Do you, the respected gentleman from London, England, UK, have supernatural knowledge of what is "unnecessary" and what is "necessary"? Is what is "unnecessary" today "unnecessary" for all time to come and in all possible situations and permutations in all the universe? (Note that if you answer "yes" to these questions I won't hold it against you, since I personally do believe in supernatural knowledge)

Are Xbox's necessary? Is beer necessary? Is anything necessary beyond a sleeping bag and tasteless gruel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

I said when capital is directed toward "luxuries", the "necessities" don't become more expensive. That's because capital - vast amounts of it - is always directed toward the necessities. Indeed, the necessities have become cheaper and more available than ever. For example, consider that food has become so widely available that humankind entered the most unprecedented, unimaginable population boom in the history of our species!

All of your examples are valid. Where supply of a luxury can be increased, it will eventually enrich the quality of life for all.

The problem is that the heiress is promoting things where the demand far outstrips the possible supply. The problem is that while the businesses used by the everyman are going out of business, more and more capital is turned to pleasing those who have money in this economic recession.

Quote:
 
Nag Ehgoeg
 
As more and more of societies resources are spent pleasing the heiress, the more she rises in esteme. The more she rises in esteme the more "Super-Sweet 16" parties get held - the more women are taught that it is their place to spend money and be spoiled. And when the heiress makes sex tapes, or wears the latest fashions in slut-ware girls are taught to imitate that as well.

That is rich. (no pun intended)

You have it backwards again. The modern day tabloid slut rises in esteem because certain philosophers such as yourself have made many attempts to rationalize the "sexually liberated" lifestyle with the seemingly respectable veneer of philosophical speculation.

Money does not a shit-faced whore make. Instead she is the product of a great sea-change in morality that has occurred. Why is it that upper-class women in past centuries were prudes confined to their homes by their fathers and husbands? How come an upper-class woman in past centuries had people following her all the time to ensure beyond a doubt that she did not stray from her marriage?

How come wealth did not notably corrupt upper-class women for 5,000 years?*

*with a few isolated temporary exceptions

Nag, tabloid heiresses became sluts because you told them that it was OK to. Today it's OK to "experiment with her sexuality". You even got into her daddy's head. You convinced her daddy that he has no right to judge his daughter. You convinced her daddy that he should be proud of her strong-willed daughter. Today it's OK for her to make her own choices about who, and how many, men she will sleep with. Today everything is OK. It has nothing to do with the money.

I'll take the "you" to mean society exculding yourself (TC). Seeing as I'm arguing that it's not OK.

Upper-class women for the past 5k years were not given any freedoms. Which, yes, meant fewer Paris Hiltons but also fewer Princess Dianas.

If the heiress was responsible and used her position to better society then you'd see less of an objection to inherited wealth. As the heiress is invariably incompetant and promiscious you see a call for social change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

As to your previous arguments, one cannot help but acknowledge that biological advantages are distributed unequally, and I am certainly not saying that we need absolute equality. Absolute equality is impossible to achieve and not something we should strive for even if it were possible. I believe that equality of means is a great evil. That too is immaterial, however, because we are not talking about equality of means, we are talking about equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is at the core of this issue because I am promoting the idea that an individual should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits, not on the merits of their family, society, etc. Under this system, inequality, the greatest motivator, will still be present.

Also, in discounting starvation as a motivator because a statistically significant portion of Americans do not currently starve you miss the entire point of my argument. Americans are not currently starving because they work in order to buy the things they need to survive, and because those who don't work have the safety net of government enforced redistributory mechanisms to fall back on. The former supports my thesis by showing that people are motivated to work because it is necessary for their continued survival. The latter supports my thesis because these redistributory programs are only in place because rational individuals recognize that there is no such things as equality of opportunities in America today, and thus are not generally rubbed the wrong way by the idea of helping out the "less fortunate", which is, in many cases, just a way of referring to those who did not receive the same opportunities we did while sidestepping that realization, which would perhaps rightly make us feel guilty.

I advocate success on one's own merit. This is not an ideology that takes us closer to the cushy welfare state, quite the opposite, in fact. Being allowed to succeed on one's own merit requires that one is also allowed to fail on one's own merit as well. If I was walking down the street in a society which offered all of its citizens equal opportunities and I see a vagrant sitting on the sidewalk, there's really no reason for me to feel that I owe him any sort of charity. After all, his environment gave him the opportunity to be where I am. If he has failed, then he has failed because of something within himself. There are many who feel this way now, but it is simply not true. There are a huge number of environmental factors working against many Americans as they attempt to make something of themselves.

As I see it, the system of absolute individual responsibility which I have outlined is the natural result of the primary American value of individualism. As things are, individualism is at least as much a curse as a gift because it lends itself to the idea that as things are, a man is entirely responsible for his own destiny. This is a folly. It will always be a folly, because some people have certain heritable characteristics which allow them to be more useful to society than others. But as things are, it's a folly which directly harms millions of people. In holding them back, it also harms the society as a whole.

The assertion you seem to have made that I most disagree with is this: that humans cannot be absolutely equal therefore we should not do what we can to make them more equal. That's ridiculous. If that logic rings true to you, then I'll submit this for your consideration: you will never get everything you want from life, so why should you strive to achieve anything you want?
Edited by Al Araam, Nov 5 2009, 06:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
Not adding to the argument, but Paris Hilton is financially independent. She makes about $10 million a year. She is as deserving of her wealth as her father is of his.

The sex video gave her the publicity she needed to jumpstart her businesses. She is rather shrewd, even if lewd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Al Araam
 
The assertion you seem to have made that I most disagree with is this: that humans cannot be absolutely equal therefore we should not do what we can to make them more equal.

That is an assertion I have never made, and which you've invented.

I would not be happier than to see people voluntarily give to charity.

But forced redistributionism, especially on the scale of this pan-continental levelling solution you seem to be proposing, is something I oppose because of its unsustainable and comprehensive inefficiency.

Al Araam
 
That's ridiculous. If that logic rings true to you, then I'll submit this for your consideration: you will never get everything you want from life, so why should you strive to achieve anything you want?


"That logic" does not ring true to me and does not have relevance to what we've been discussing so far.

Al Araam
 
I believe that equality of means is a great evil. That too is immaterial, however, because we are not talking about equality of means, we are talking about equality of opportunity.


There is no dichotomy between "means" and "opportunity."

Inherited biological traits, which you insist on calling "means," are in fact synonymous with opportunity.

An intelligent person automatically enjoys more opportunity than an unintelligent person simply because his brainpower is greater. For example an intelligent person has the opportunity to become a great mathematician, while an unintelligent person does not have that opportunity, even if both individuals are given the same financial resources at birth.

If you regard the "equality of means" as "a great evil," then the fallacy of "equality of opportunity" becomes apparent. As such, there is no consistent logical basis to consider inherited wealth less legitimate than inherited intelligence. Both inherited wealth and inherited intelligence are "opportunities", and both are "means", and both were bequeathed onto a particular individual through no effort of his own, and only through the actions of his parents.

Al Araam
 
Equality of opportunity is at the core of this issue because I am promoting the idea that an individual should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits, not on the merits of their family, society, etc. Under this system, inequality, the greatest motivator, will still be present.

You falsely conflate a man's inherited biological traits with his actions. How is inherited intelligence any more a "merit" than inherited wealth?

An intelligent person gained his superior genes of intelligence through no effort of his own, but more doors of opportunity are opened for him than for an individual of lowly intelligence.

Since you already accept the legitimacy of unearned intelligence, then it is already easy for you to accept the legitimacy of unearned wealth, and doing so would make you more amenable to the sensible suggestion that an individual should be allowed to pass on the fruits of his labor to his children, and that an individual should be allowed to aspire to provide his children with material abundance.

Al Araam
 
Also, in discounting starvation as a motivator because a statistically significant portion of Americans do not currently starve you miss the entire point of my argument.

I did not discount starvation as a motivator.

Instead, I anticipated your mental imagery of a society overrun with the starving poor in a "free market", and also your belief that the only thing keeping people from starving is a government safety-net, and I allayed your fears.

Al Araam
 
Americans are not currently starving because they work in order to buy the things they need to survive, and because those who don't work have the safety net of government enforced redistributory mechanisms to fall back on.

Please refer back to my post. As I observed, there has not been starvation in the US, ever, even before government safety nets existed. Even in lean times churches and community groups provided enough soup kitchens for the poor.

Contrary to popular myth, there is not even starvation in Africa, with the exception of occasions of war-induced famine limited to certain war zones where peaceful farming activity is forcibly disrupted by faraway political disputes. Sub-Saharan Africa has been experiencing an unprecedented century-long population boom.

Al Araam
 
The former supports my thesis by showing that people are motivated to work because it is necessary for their continued survival.

What is the problem you see with people being motivated to work because it is necessary for their continued survival?

Al Araam
 
The latter supports my thesis because these redistributory programs are only in place because rational individuals recognize that there is no such things as equality of opportunities in America today, and thus are not generally rubbed the wrong way by the idea of helping out the "less fortunate", which is, in many cases, just a way of referring to those who did not receive the same opportunities we did while sidestepping that realization, which would perhaps rightly make us feel guilty.

As I pointed out, America has never experienced starvation, even before government redistributory programs existed, in part because people are generally not rubbed the wrong way by the idea of helping out the "less fortunate"; and people generally desire to lend a helping hand to strangers, as demonstrated by the abundance of community groups, church groups, and other voluntary organizations that helped the poor in America in past centuries (and continue to play a role).

In conclusion, your thesis contains no internal logic because it is based on a bewildering and false dichotomy between "means" and "opportunity".


************


Nag Ehgoeg
 
Yes, she is less worthy.

Brains, even good looks, are useful to others on their own merit. Inherited money is not. Money is useful to society, but it'd be just as useful in the hands of others more deserving.


There is no difference between a person deriving benefits from possessing inherited beauty and deriving benefits from possessing inherited wealth.

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Work, labour and exertion are the highest ideals because it is work that drives humanity forward. Without work there would be no progress or luxury. The reason people can eat better than Emperors is because we've worked hard to create such a society.


The reason people can eat better than Emperors is because people thought luxuries were not useless, and therefore worked to produce more, and not less, luxuries. And here you are advocating that we create less luxuries.

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Money is flittered away from the person who earned it by the heiress on useless things. Money that could have been used more prudently to make more factories, techonologies arts and crafts and inventions.


Didn't the heiress build factories though? By spending money on clothes and other luxuries, didn't she provide the money to build more textile factories, electronics factories, and employ more artists and engineers and factory workers?

Nag Ehgoeg
 
All of your examples are valid. Where supply of a luxury can be increased, it will eventually enrich the quality of life for all.

The problem is that the heiress is promoting things where the demand far outstrips the possible supply.


In all my historical examples, the demand always far outstripped the precious supply.

The solution was to increase the possible supply, not to force people to decrease their demand.

What is the reasoning behind your proposal to nullify this age-old solution?

Nag Ehgoeg
 
The problem is that while the businesses used by the everyman are going out of business, more and more capital is turned to pleasing those who have money in this economic recession.


That is a crude and inaccurate caricature of the recession but that's something we've discussed in the past I think and will probably discuss again in the future.

Nag Ehgoeg
 
I'll take the "you" to mean society exculding yourself (TC). Seeing as I'm arguing that it's not OK.

Really? Did you suddenly find God in Leviticus? I always thought you were a satanist in philosophical orientation.

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Upper-class women for the past 5k years were not given any freedoms. Which, yes, meant fewer Paris Hiltons but also fewer Princess Dianas.

If the heiress was responsible and used her position to better society then you'd see less of an objection to inherited wealth. As the heiress is invariably incompetant and promiscious you see a call for social change.


Simply spending money on luxuries can better society, as it directs capital and investment to desirable goods, attracting competitors and entrepreneurs and increasing the availability of those goods.

Princess Diana did not contribute anything extraordinary to civilization, and her son Prince Harry is of doubtful paternity. Sure, she "campaigned" against land-mines in Africa but that was the least efficient way to solve problems. The best and only way to resolve the strife in Africa is through economic trade with Africa that can result in increased prosperity for the African people - so the African people no longer believe they need to fight wars to secure their well-being.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 5 2009, 10:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quote:
 
Nag:
Work, labour and exertion are the highest ideals because it is work that drives humanity forward. Without work there would be no progress or luxury. The reason people can eat better than Emperors is because we've worked hard to create such a society.


This is what impressed me about the Henry Ford Museum - work, industry, invention creates wealth which creates luxury. You have hit the nail on the head here, it is through personal industry, hard work, and invention that wealth is made. Whithout it, we have nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 03:30 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 03:14 PM
Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 02:57 PM
Atticus
Nov 3 2009, 12:18 AM
:rolleyes:

Hypocritical?
You know what, enough with the fucking hypocrite bullshit. I'm not giving anymore "I'm only human" speeches.
Will you also stop giving the "have mercy and forgiveness but if the law would permit then I'm going to break some bones" speeches, or will you keep giving those speeches?
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help.

I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others.

I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now.
Well, being a hypocrite isn't going to help either.

A lot of people have different natures, but those natures usually don't contradict each other, unless you are a schizophrenic.

We're just trying to help you by pointing out your contradicting flaws so that you can fix them.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelius
Member Avatar
Norman Warlord
Atticus
Nov 5 2009, 11:57 PM
Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 03:30 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 03:14 PM
Sedulius
Nov 5 2009, 02:57 PM
Atticus
Nov 3 2009, 12:18 AM
:rolleyes:

Hypocritical?
You know what, enough with the fucking hypocrite bullshit. I'm not giving anymore "I'm only human" speeches.
Will you also stop giving the "have mercy and forgiveness but if the law would permit then I'm going to break some bones" speeches, or will you keep giving those speeches?
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help.

I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others.

I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now.
Well, being a hypocrite isn't going to help either.

A lot of people have different natures, but those natures usually don't contradict each other, unless you are a schizophrenic.

We're just trying to help you by pointing out your contradicting flaws so that you can fix them.
Knowing Sed, it's entirely possible he is a schizophrenic. :P

On a serious note, I think most people are conflicted by what they feel they should do (morals, logic, what have you) against what they would actually like to do. Usually trying to rationalize both simultaneously doesn't really work. You either do what you want, do what you believe you're supposed to do, or do what is wise to do. Ideally, those should all be the same thing, but I think they rarely are.
Edited by Aelius, Nov 6 2009, 12:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flumes
Member Avatar
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
New Harumf
Nov 5 2009, 10:41 PM
Quote:
 
Nag:
Work, labour and exertion are the highest ideals because it is work that drives humanity forward. Without work there would be no progress or luxury. The reason people can eat better than Emperors is because we've worked hard to create such a society.


This is what impressed me about the Henry Ford Museum - work, industry, invention creates wealth which creates luxury. You have hit the nail on the head here, it is through personal industry, hard work, and invention that wealth is made. Whithout it, we have nothing.
*Applause*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

TC, I have no idea what your goddamn point is. You've now actually misconstrued all of the points I've made. I'm about 98% sure that you more or less agree with me, although the more than adequate amount of Utah beer and cheap vodka that I've consumed keeps me from determining whether or not that's actually the truth. If that's not true, none of your points make sense to me as far as I can tell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The cliffs notes version is that man should be allowed to succeed or fail on his genetics, his family, his society, and his actions.

He has little to no control over his genetics, his family, and his society. He has a bit more control over his actions.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 6 2009, 06:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 03:54 PM
Sedulius
 
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help.

I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others.

I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now.
In another thread didn't you give the advice that duelling and fighting were desirable and signs of a good man though? Why do you feel bad about duelling and fighting then? I'm not trying to anger you; in fact I'm not seeing hypocrisy when you are talking about things like duelling and associated virtues such as bravery or strength.
I never said such were the qualities of a good man. I do think it is right to fight for a just cause, however. In the case of Telo, he was given a "fight or flight" situation. Honestly, the honorable thing to do was fight.

In my case, when I spoke of fighting against the disrespectful, I think such a thing should only be necessary if it is apparent it cannot be resolved another way. Indeed, I've have many chances this semester to fight, and I chose the path of peace.

But remember, unless it is being asked for, I don't give advice, only opinions. I think that's the root problem. People see me as "preaching" and then not practicing what I "preach".

But that's the furthest thing from the truth. I simply display my morals on here, I do not preach them. I do everything I can to practice them, but as a human being it is hard.

The good thing is, since I've had some time to think this over and had a good talk with a friend, I'm not angry anymore, for the time being.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

TC, I see the point you're trying to make. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make. I have no desire to for each of us to repeat our arguments ad nausem stating the same things over and over without addressing the crux of the matter. If anyone wants me to clarify my position, then I will. Otherwise, the last word is yours.

Tristan da Cunha
Nov 5 2009, 09:08 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
 
I'll take the "you" to mean society exculding yourself (TC). Seeing as I'm arguing that it's not OK.

Really? Did you suddenly find God in Leviticus? I always thought you were a satanist in philosophical orientation.


Satanist or no, that doesn't mean that I'm not free to disagree with the social-sexual values held by todays society. I hold out hope that sexual moderation and "decency" (as I chose to subjectively define it) can exist without the sexual repression you advocate (which I would find preferential to the lack of morals demonstrated by society today).
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Nov 10 2009, 01:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply