Ultra-Conservative Socialist?

[NumeDeUtilizator]

I'm somewhat surprised by the association of Communism with Anarchy. Two distinct classifications. One promoting a dependence on a state, and the other independence thereof.

More specifically, are the general opinions of fellow members. I shall present my views to contrast perhaps to those reading this post, so as to not speak on their behalf, and do them no justice.
I oppose the idea of abortion, I think it devalues human life. I oppose homosexuality, transgenders on principle, the issue in itself I think is somewhat vulgar - a person's personal life is their own - and I respect that. But to make an identity out of it, out of sex, to be presented and accepted by schoolchildren (during social education) is unacceptable to me. I oppose the idea of prostitution on a similar basis, it's a degrading experience for the "employee" and is a truly dehumanizing and spineless activity for the "customer".

I realize that given the somewhat conditioned mentalities of my "civilized" counterparts, that my Eastern European principles will be met by declarations of radicalism or possibly even fascism. It was not the objective I had in mind with this thread. I would like to know whether there are any other people who share my beliefs.

Thank you for reading.

[#FF0000]

I'm somewhat surprised by the association of Communism with Anarchy. Two distinct classifications. One promoting a dependence on a state, and the other independence thereof.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. The difference between anarchists and communists are not in the ends but in the means they see fit to meet their goals. Anarchists think statelessness is an immediate goal, while Communists see the state as necessary for organizing workers against their class enemies.


More specifically, are the general opinions of fellow members. I shall present my views to contrast perhaps to those reading this post, so as to not speak on their behalf, and do them no justice.
I oppose the idea of abortion, I think it devalues human life.

And we oppose it because it is a sexist position. I suppose you can be a sexist and a communist, but we don't accept that on the unrestricted area of the forum.


I oppose homosexuality, transgenders on principle, the issue in itself I think is somewhat vulgar - a person's personal life is their own - and I respect that. But to make an identity out of it, out of sex, to be presented and accepted by schoolchildren (during social education) is unacceptable to me.

Your issue with it seems to be "that's gross". That's bad reasoning.


I would like to know whether there are any other people who share my beliefs.

If there are, they are either banned or restricted.

[danyboy27]

well, if i remember, homophobes are banned, but people supporting arbortion are restricted.

[NumeDeUtilizator]

Before leaving this forum, I'd like to contradict you, on all points.

Sexism? Following this kind of logic, I suppose you could argue it is sexist that women hold the power over life and death. That's not an argument. Abortion isn't a form of contraception, and Marxism championed this. Every human life is valued, and just because it isn't born does not justify the redemption of its rights as a human being.

"That's gross" is hardly the point I was trying to make. I think it's "gross", that is vulgar for a hetrosexual to declare his sexual inclinations to people. It's simply, common sense. Whilst I do not object to homosexuality in someone's personal life - neither have I the right to - I do object to people basing a culture on it. It's like basing a culture on sex (!) - I mean, well done, you enjoy it with a different gender, but with that reasoning you can argue pedophilia, bestiality etc, as valid topics to imprint young children with.

Please let me know what you think.

[danyboy27]

Before leaving this forum, I'd like to contradict you, on all points.

Sexism? Following this kind of logic, I suppose you could argue it is sexist that women hold the power over life and death. That's not an argument. Abortion isn't a form of contraception, and Marxism championed this. Every human life is valued, and just because it isn't born does not justify the redemption of its rights as a human being.


until a certain degree, the infant in the womb is nothing but a little cell.
i dont see any problems with a person having the right to destroy cells before they become an developped foetus.





"That's gross" is hardly the point I was trying to make. I think it's "gross", that is vulgar for a hetrosexual to declare his sexual inclinations to people. It's simply, common sense. Whilst I do not object to homosexuality in someone's personal life - neither have I the right to - I do object to people basing a culture on it. It's like basing a culture on sex (!) - I mean, well done, you enjoy it with a different gender, but with that reasoning you can argue pedophilia, bestiality etc, as valid topics to imprint young children with.

Please let me know what you think.
homosexuality=sex between consenting adults
pedophilia=sex between a minor with an incomplete mental pattern and an adult

what happen between 2 consents adult shouldnt bother you at all

[IcarusAngel]

Another American Libertarian.

[danyboy27]

Another American Libertarian.

more like a sad person if you ask me

[Kwisatz Haderach]

well, if i remember, homophobes are banned, but people supporting arbortion are restricted.
No one is banned except fascists and trolls. All people holding a non-fascist opposing ideology are restricted.

NumeDeUtilizator, you will likely be restricted, but that means you can still post here in the Opposing Ideologies forum. Now, with regard to your views:


I oppose the idea of abortion, I think it devalues human life.
How so? I do not understand. What is the "value of human life," and how does abortion reduce it? Abortion is simply a solution to an unwanted and unexpected accident.


I oppose homosexuality, transgenders on principle, the issue in itself I think is somewhat vulgar - a person's personal life is their own - and I respect that. But to make an identity out of it, out of sex, to be presented and accepted by schoolchildren (during social education) is unacceptable to me.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You said in another post that you're ok with consenting adults having sex with each other no matter who they are or what their gender is. That's the most important thing, and if you agree with that then you agree with most people here.

Now, you seem to be opposed to the public expression of homosexual identity (or perhaps sexual identity in general?). That seems to be because you're not looking at the origin of modern sexual politics. Most expressions of homosexual identity are meant to fight homophobia. If there was no homophobia - if we lived in a truly equal world - there would be no need for anyone to make a big deal of their sexual preference. The ideal is to create a world in which saying "I'm gay" has the same effect on people as saying "I have brown eyes." But since we don't live in such a world, it is necessary for gay people to fight for acceptance in society.


I oppose the idea of prostitution on a similar basis, it's a degrading experience for the "employee" and is a truly dehumanizing and spineless activity for the "customer".
Many people here on Revleft - myself included - also oppose prostitution, but for somewhat different reasons. First of all, prostitution is a form of capitalist employment, so it exploits workers just like all other forms of capitalist employment. But in many cases prostitution goes beyond the usual economic exploitation, and becomes something more akin to slavery (for example when the prostitutes are victims of human trafficking, or when they are physically abused by their "employers").

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Another American Libertarian.
He said he was Eastern European, actually. Judging by his username, he's Romanian.

[Bud Struggle]

He said he was Eastern European, actually. Judging by his username, he's Romanian.

Blame it on America!

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Sexism? Following this kind of logic, I suppose you could argue it is sexist that women hold the power over life and death. That's not an argument.

It has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life and everything to do with social control. The abortion debate is entirely about people believing that female sexuality is something owned by society and not by the individual in question.


It's like basing a culture on sex (!)All culture is based on sex.

[Jack]

All culture is based on sex.

Care to back that up or do you just like pulling witty, philisophical comments out your ass?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm somewhat surprised by the association of Communism with Anarchy. Two distinct classifications. One promoting a dependence on a state, and the other independence thereof.

OK, I'll buy that. The Anarchchist have some important suff to add about shooting monkeys out of trees in Central America. Monkies an improtant source of Anarchist protean.


More specifically, are the general opinions of fellow members. I shall present my views to contrast perhaps to those reading this post, so as to not speak on their behalf, and do them no justice. OK



I oppose the idea of abortion, I think it devalues human life. Right n point. No REAL Socialist or Communist could ever accept abortion. It's just New Age fantasy.


I oppose homosexuality, transgenders on principle, the issue in itself I think is somewhat vulgar - a person's personal life is their own - and I respect that. But to make an identity out of it, out of sex, to be presented and accepted by schoolchildren (during social education) is unacceptable to me. Well made point Comrade. A person's personae should never be just "one thing." One shouldn't ever be just a "blonde" or a man or a woman--one should be an amalgum of all the things that you are--sexuality being a recognized part of that whole. But once a person is regulated to the part of sex object or sex organs--it does neither the person or society any good.


I oppose the idea of prostitution on a similar basis, it's a degrading experience for the "employee" and is a truly dehumanizing and spineless activity for the "customer". I'm sure there are some women that like being sex objects just like there are some Blacks that like being "slaves." It's not a reality that any Communist siciety should entertain.


I realize that given the somewhat conditioned mentalities of my "civilized" counterparts, that my Eastern European principles will be met by declarations of radicalism or possibly even fascism. It was not the objective I had in mind with this thread. I would like to know whether there are any other people who share my beliefs.

Thank you for reading. Welcome to RevLeft--you'll be restricted to OI soon, but all the really interesting Communists are here anyway.

Enjoy your stay!

Bud

[Richard Nixon]

Interesting type of communist. Anyway I welcome you as a fellow restricted member to the OI forum. Happy Posting!

[NumeDeUtilizator]

"Kwisatz Haderach" Thank you for a very real challenge to the way I think, I shall attempt to re-justify myself.

I admire ancient civilizations, in particular their wars, I was very passionate about ancient warfare. Not in the same degree regarding the Romans or the Greeks, but the Germanic tribes, the Dacians, the Spartans, the Myceneans, those I would consider born for war. They mentality was based on tribal concepts of trust and security and it was reflected in their fighting through their inherent skill and outright bravery. My point, is that, it was an achievement to kill several hundreds, maybe thousands of people to win a momentus - one in a decade/century - war, nowadays, the ability to kill billions of people at once has become etched in our minds. That we are vulnerable. In the same way, the ability to kill fetus' has encrouched upon another vulnerability.

Regarding, "WhitemageofDOOM", I starkly diagree with your ideas. Abortion was condemned by the Catholic church as it "destroyed the intrinsic value of human live", not that I would use the Catholic church to back me, I similarly condemn the Catholic church for different motives. The state is a tribal evolution, it guarentees security - that is the main reason we mass in groups - this security means that all members are to enjoy the rights of civilization. Society doesn't allow liberty, merely liberties, because you must at all times respect all other members of society - this implies restrictions to behaviour. To conclude this point, abortion is only truely regarding whether the child is actually even alive. The zygote, the initial cell in the uterus, is alive. It contains DNA, coding for a unique individual, not being able to see the individual does not mean me may negate their rights.

Your next "point" was, I'm certain, for an expected impact due to it's laconic "witty" form. No, it isn't, but until you at least prove you have a fundamental understanding of sociology I won't dignify your argument.

P.S. I am Romanian, good guess.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Wall of text about Conservative views.

Four words: Have fun being restricted. :)

[Conquer or Die]

"Kwisatz Haderach" Thank you for a very real challenge to the way I think, I shall attempt to re-justify myself.

I admire ancient civilizations, in particular their wars, I was very passionate about ancient warfare. Not in the same degree regarding the Romans or the Greeks, but the Germanic tribes, the Dacians, the Spartans, the Myceneans, those I would consider born for war. They mentality was based on tribal concepts of trust and security and it was reflected in their fighting through their inherent skill and outright bravery. My point, is that, it was an achievement to kill several hundreds, maybe thousands of people to win a momentus - one in a decade/century - war, nowadays, the ability to kill billions of people at once has become etched in our minds. That we are vulnerable. In the same way, the ability to kill fetus' has encrouched upon another vulnerability.

Regarding, "WhitemageofDOOM", I starkly diagree with your ideas. Abortion was condemned by the Catholic church as it "destroyed the intrinsic value of human live", not that I would use the Catholic church to back me, I similarly condemn the Catholic church for different motives. The state is a tribal evolution, it guarentees security - that is the main reason we mass in groups - this security means that all members are to enjoy the rights of civilization. Society doesn't allow liberty, merely liberties, because you must at all times respect all other members of society - this implies restrictions to behaviour. To conclude this point, abortion is only truely regarding whether the child is actually even alive. The zygote, the initial cell in the uterus, is alive. It contains DNA, coding for a unique individual, not being able to see the individual does not mean me may negate their rights.

Your next "point" was, I'm certain, for an expected impact due to it's laconic "witty" form. No, it isn't, but until you at least prove you have a fundamental understanding of sociology I won't dignify your argument.

P.S. I am Romanian, good guess.

So you deserve less respect than libertarians and social fascists. Thanks for clarification :thumbup: