Results 41 to 60 of 149
Presumably you're aware that the institution of marriage doesn't condone sterile people having non-reproductive sex or couples objectifying one another etc. Presumably you're aware that whether sterile people can't have reproductive sex, whether couples get married and hate having sex, whether couples get married and only enjoy non-productive oral sex or whether they prefer to watch pornography and masturbate in loneliness and never have kids...none of this has any baring on the institution of heterosexual marriage. The heterosexual sexual act itself is symbolic and still based on reproduction and creation even if it doesn't produce a result all the time. You're saying that a couple who want a baby but have problems in the bedroom such as the husband not being able to get it up is comparable to the homosexual sex act which doesn't in the first place have in any single way a possibility to reproduce. That's like saying someone who kept trying to create something but kept failing is the same as someone who wasn't trying at all to create anything and just doing it for pleasure are the same. That's insane.
Same sex marriage explicitly condones non-reproductive sex and encourages culturally a selfish lifestyle that should be discouraged culturally for reasons of happiness ad fulfillment and desiring the best in society.
You describe "marriage" as a contract. That's your own interpretation of marriage when in reality the term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.
Last edited by graffic; 22nd January 2013 at 16:03.
No, I've heard of no such thing. A couple does not have to be fertile in order to be happily married.
In that case, why shouldn't same-sex and sterile couples get married?
I thought you said marriage had nothing to do with sex?
If people find happiness and fulfilment in pursuing childless relationships, who are you to tell them otherwise? It's not as if people are being forced to remain childless.
Says who? Every solicitor who has ever had to deal with a divorce case would disagree with you.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
I disagree that people are happy and fulfilled without having any children. I think people are happier with children and men are happier with their own family.
The heterosexual sex act is symbolic. It's symbolic of reproduction, creation and giving life. "Love" to me, and sexual love is symbolic of "life". Love is the opposite of death.
"Homosexuality" being culturally encouraged does bring "sex" out into the open in public discourse. In mainstream heterosexual society "sex" is in the background which makes it more erotic and embracing. Declaring one to be proud of being gay or "out and proud" automatically brings "sex" to the forefront because it defines itself by being a different from the normal type of sexuality and relationship.
If you want to legalize same sex marriage and encourage the homosexual lifestyle culturally you clearly don't want the best for society. You don't understand what makes people happy and fulfilled.
Last edited by graffic; 22nd January 2013 at 16:33.
Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so.
How is anyone supposed to argue against baseless rambling? You're a homophobe. Simple.
What makes you think that you know people better than they know themselves?
All that symbolism and shit is stuff that's been artificially tacked on - it's not inherent to sexual acts or romance. If love really is the opposite of death, then why have lovers been known to slay one another in fits of jealous rage?
This dichotomy you have in your head concerning love and death is overly simplistic and does no reflect reality.
The only reason you think heterosexuality is "in the background" is because you're so used to seeing it around that it doesn't jump out at you as much as homosexuality does. Humans are sexual creatures - I'll tell you what's erotic and embracing, the idea that people should be free to pursue consensual relationships without having to conform to patriarchal and heterosexist expectations of behaviour.
Being "out" does no such thing. Just like heterosexuals, LGBT folk have their own preferences when it comes to sex in a relationship - from entirely platonic to fuck-buddies.
Which is why I'm not telling people what they should be doing, unlike you.
Try telling that to LGBT people who want to marry a same-sex partner.
Just because prudence doesn't sell doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sex is commodified because monetising basic human desires is what capitalism does, not because of some abstract "moral" failing.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
This bifurcation between what you call; 'political struggle', and; 'economic struggle' makes no sense, whatsoever. A much more accurate, and sensible characterization would be; 'defensive' struggle, where we are responding to an assault upon the working class, and; 'offensive' struggle, where we are attempting to advance the interests of the working class, to gain new ground, by demanding reforms, and concessions to empower the working class. You'll note I've made this distinction often, and repeatedly. Several times, in fact, in the course of this very conversation.NGM - you don't seem to understand the difference between political struggles and economic struggles, the offensive and defensive sections of class struggle respectively.
Political struggle is engagement with all levels of politics:
in elections for propaganda purposes (since the bourgeoisie will never allow a true radical candidate to win)
at the local neighbourhood level
at a national, campaigning level
including all protests, demonstrations and most importantly solidary, wildcat and secondary strikes leading to a mass strike that paralyses both the bourgeois state and the capitalist economy
Economic struggle is, in times of capital offensive, being able to defend what we already have:
limited hours working day
the existence of the minimum wage
welfare
working conditions
pensions
etc.
The economic struggle is not code for: 'right, there's no chance of revolution guys so lets hope for some reforms now since it's the best we can do'. That attitude, which you display so frequently and so wrongly in the name of radical politics, has nothing to do with being a revolutionary; it is straight up reformism and does little to help the working class, because in 2016 there will be a new President who will take away any little crumbs that activists have exhausted themselves in trying to grab from the Democrats' table.
It's a hopeless strategy and it's a continued source of annoyance to me that you peddle it on this board.
Oh and please, DO NOT de-construct this post and reply line-by-line. Just think about the bigger picture, ok.
You still misuse the word; 'Reformism.' 'Reformism' refers to Socialists who believe that Socialism can be established nonviolently (Which Marx believed, at least, in the West.) through parliamentary means. Look it up, for fucks' sake, if you don't believe me. I've explained this to you several times. I have also been equally explicit that I do not subscribe to Reformism, and I have consistently criticized Reformism. All of these things you already know. At this point it's becoming difficult not to conclude there's some deliberate ignorance going on, here.
Making healthcare and education more accessible absolutely helps the working class. Overturning institutional barriers that discriminate against homosexuals and, thus, divide the working class against itself, absolutely helps the working class. Reforming our absurd, and obscene drug laws so less workers get incarcerated absolutely helps the working class. There's no other way to see it.
This idea about reforms, and concessions inevitably disappearing in the next election is ridiculous. Gay marriage is here to stay, in 10 states. Soon, depending on the Supreme Court, probably the whole country. The drug law reforms passed , here, in Massachusetts, and several other states, are here to stay. The Affordable Care Act, for all it's flaws, is here to stay, which means, among other things, that 31 million Americans will have health insurance, who, otherwise, would not. If you can't see that helps the working class; you should see an optometrist. Social security, and Medicare while under assault, which is something that should be opposed as millions of Americans depend on these programs, and because it's a blatant attack on the working class, aren't going anywhere fast, because the American public wouldn't tolerate it. These are all real gains that have been won, they were not presents from the master class. You can be as upset as you want about that; that's your pathology.
You're continued derision, and contempt for reforms, and concessions won in the class struggle, and the people who fought for, and, in some cases died for them, is unseemly, and irrational. More disturbing is the implicit contempt for the working class, within it. What you're really saying is; Who gives a fuck if poor kids eat? Who gives a fuck if gays can marry? Why should I give a shit if workers have health insurance? That doesn't display support for the working class, that displays indifference, or even outright hostility to the working class.
As to your claims of ineffectivesness; you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Again; what you're really saying is that the history of the Radical Left, in the West, is a history of failure. That western Radicals have achieved absolutely nothing, whatsoever, ever. That's remarkably ignorant, and obviously false to anyone who knows anything. It's so insane it's almost not worth refuting.
The problem is that you're an ultra-Leftist, plain and simple. You're not the only one. Thus; out of your misguided insistence on ideological purity, which is what you people really care about, you oppose any form of incrementalism, because from this standpoint; anything short of immediate, violent overthrow of the existing order is tantamount to ideological treason. This attitude totally disregards reality. To hear a Marxist spouting such idealistic, even fantastical rhetoric is, frankly, comical. There is no evidence that the masses are remotely close to seizing the means of production, in any kind of conceivable immediate future. I mean; trying to reason with you is pretty much a wasted exercise, anyhow, but I find it difficult you can be so blind as to not perceive that. In such instances, which is where we are, at this minute, there's no denying it, it is the task of Socialists to empower the working class, so it can hopefully, eventually perform this function. We can't have the revolution all by ourselves, only the working class can do that. If it happens; it won't be because the masses were stirred to action by your sparkling oratory, but, rather; because the material conditions will be ripe for it, because the existing institutions will be exhausted. At that point, if we ever get there; nothing will be able to stop it.
I'll end with a quote from Malatesta;
'I believe that one must take all that can be taken, whether much or little: do whatever is possible today, while always fighting to make possible what today seems impossible.
For instance, if today we cannot get rid of every kind of government, this is not a good reason for taking no interest in defending the few acquired liberties and fighting to gain more of those. If now we cannot completely abolish the capitalist system and the resulting exploitation of the workers, this is no good reason to quit fighting to obtain higher salaries and better working conditions. If we cannot abolish commerce and replace it with the direct exchange among producers, this is no good reason for not seeking the means to escape the exploitation of traders and profiteers as much as possible. If the oppressors’ power and the state of the public opinion prevent now from abolishing the prisons and providing to any defence against wrongdoers with more humane means, not for this we would lose interest in an action for abolishing death penalty, life imprisonment, close confinement and, in general, the most ferocious means of repression by which what is called social justice, but actually amounts to a barbarian revenge, is exercised. If we cannot abolish the police, not for this we would allow, without protesting and resisting, that the policemen beat the prisoners and allow themselves all sorts of excesses, overstepping the limit prescribed to them by the laws in force themselves...
I am breaking off here, as there are thousands and thousands of cases, both in individual and social life, in which, being unable to obtain ‘all’, one has to try and get as much as possible.'
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist...a/against.html
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
There is a difference between participating in elections (by voting democrat, no less) and taking part in actual struggle, NGNM.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
No kidding. I don't why he doesn't get that we're actively engaging in struggle without partcipating in the mainstream of politics. He acts like you have to hold your nose and be involved in a liberal organization fighting for whatever pet cause in order to be a true radical.
He accused someone of saying that true radical vote for Republicans but he is actually telling us that true radicals engage in mainstream parliamentary bourgeois politcs?
Like I said; after looking at the 2012 RNC platform; I fail to see why you would support the Republican party, which is what you're really saying, you just don't realize it.
It's all part of the same thing; fighting for the working class. If you care about the working class; you always want the best possible (Emphasis o the word; 'possible.') outcome for the working class, even if it's only to choose between a bad outcome, and a worse one. That's what; 'caring' means. Imagine you're a parent with a child with terminal cancer, and, furthermore; let's presume you actually love this child, you care about this child. You will not say; 'This sucks, I want a new kid that doesn't have terminal cancer.' You won't say; 'Fuck it, he's gonna die anyhow; so I'm going to go home, and make a
sandwich.' If you actually care about this child; you will do everything, and anything to make their short stay on this earth as pleasant as possible, even if it's only to ameliorate their discomfort for a second. That's what; 'caring' means. Armed with this new understanding, we can say that if you care about the working class, you always want the best possible outcome for the working class, and you do everything in your power to achieve that, even if it means voting for the lesser evil. Even a cursory analysis will reveal that owing to the differences between the establishment parties, which, again, is largely due to the fact they reflect different elite constituencies, the working class does better under Democratic administrations, than Republican administrations. Not fantastic, but better. That's the litmus test. Furthermore, as I said to RadioRaheem; the battles for smaller increments of justice; gay rights, labor struggles, reproductive rights, the welfare state, etc., etc., these smaller skirmishes in the class war, may begin in the streets, but, if we are successful, they must inevitably end in the White House, in Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the courts. It is for this reason that we clearly have a vested interest in deciding who holds those offices. How does it advance reproductive rights to elect Pro-Life politicians, and judges? How does it advance gay rights to elect blatantly homophobic politicians? How does it help labor unions to elect politicians who express nothing but contempt for; 'union thugs'? Even dictators must occasionally bend to certain pressures. However; we can choose to make it easier, or to make it harder. I choose easier.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Then you're only participating in part of the struggle, the part you feel comfortable with.
If you care about the working class, which is the most fundamental sufficient condition of being a Socialist; you always want the best possible outcome for the working class. Always. Without question. You care about this abstract notion of; 'ideological purity' first, and the working class, second. That's why you're an ultra-Leftist. From this perspective; every form of incrementalism, any half-step, no matter how great, or small, is ideological treason, and thus; the history of the western Left is a history of failure.He acts like you have to hold your nose and be involved in a liberal organization fighting for whatever pet cause in order to be a true radical.
Marx didn't have any qualms about it. Lenin urged British Socialists to campaign for the Labour party. This is just ultra-Left nonsense.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Well to repeat what you accuse many of us here of doing...you do not understand what you're talking about. You have no radical class analysis in your bones. And I do not know how much more I need to explain this to you, you just keep writing back that I need to clarify this further and further for you, but it just breaks down to something really simple; are you engaging each topic from a socio-economic or class perspective? No, you are coming at it from it a clearly idealistic p.o.v. claiming that these rights and single issues are self evident truths and should "duh" be supported by all without this stupid need for theory. You want children fed, you want workers to have insurance, you want all this but you're willing to compromise and shake hands with anyone that promotes it on a surface level. That's liberalism, plain and simple, and you cannot escape that no matter how hard you try to make yourself seem more radical than thou.
The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, first nominated a Republican to be the lead speaker of one of the Marches on DC for gay rights. Many were furious because they saw it as a betrayal of the old liberaration stance the gay movement worked hard for. Why nominate a guy who stands for gay rights but is very much opposed to other rights and economic issues that will eventually hurt the gay community anyways? You cannot seperate the economic issues from the political. That will just continue the schism in this country; that we are all equal under the law but not in the economy. In the workplace we're still polarized.
Just give it the fuck up NGN. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. You wanna have it both ways and be a little rebel while remaining relevant to your friends. Just join the Daily Kos forum or Democratic Underground and get it over with already. You're not an anarchist by any measure.
The problem is that simply electing people is the baseline least you can do and accomplishes barely anything, especially considering the democrats these days support policies that are to the right of Ronald Reagan. So while I agree that it's a good idea to fight for any gain you can, it's a waste of time to rally for the democrats if you think they're the ones that are going to be making those gains for the working class, as if they haven't made it abundantly clear that they're a party of austerity and imperialist aggression as much as the republicans are.
Every significant gain the working class has made has been the result of movements of the working class -- not by elected muppets. One can definitely be involved in actual struggles on the ground and still vote, I think -- I understand why a lot of women I know voted for the Democrats, and I don't think what they do is lessened by the fact that they did -- but trying to get people to actually support the democrats beyond casting a ballot out of anxiety pretty much makes you a shill and puts you on the wrong side of history, I think.
And no, not voting democrat doesn't make me an invisible supporter of the republicans no more than not voting republican makes me an invisible supporter of the democrats. The democrats are simply not my party. I don't believe in cuts to the last vestiges of a social safety net in the US. I don't believe in cuts to education. I don't believe in unrestricted drone warfare and intervention in Africa. Thus, the democrats are not my party.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
[FONT=Verdana]NGN, why can't you support these issues without being a supporter or card carrying member of the Dems? Why do you find a lot of these liberal organizations to be unbiased and legitimate. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]As the economy contracts and becomes more and more liberalized, the politics of the matter reflect what's good for the people in charge of the economy, the commanding heights. Basic human rights, civil rights are cared for only in how much it relates to the market economy. Even Chomsky wrote about this. If it's good for business, if it's getting more tolerable and there is niche market that has formed as a result then the political climate is good for legislative change. It's not because these politicians profoundly or the Dems fundamentally care about gay rights. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]The gains workers achieved during the early twentieth century were due to the fact that there was a revolution in Russia and strong labor movement put the fear of God into the ruling class. The political climate thus became amendable to concessions. Where is that fear now? Why should the business and political class cave into pressures at this stage? Why should they themselves enact any sort of real reform at this stage? Why fight within a system like this that systemically does not give one iota to workers struggles because they know they're in charge. Why would they give up any of their interests to worker concessions? [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is why you do not know what you're talking about, [FONT=Verdana]at all[/FONT]! You’re still working under the assumption that the political and economic are separate. That you can enact laws that will make things more people more equal under the law but refuse to acknowledge that is the antagonisms within the workplace that cause the greater inequality. There can never be real democracy without economic democracy being first fought for, and that’s why the past activism of the past all had socialism or progressive leftism as their main backdrop, whether they were the Black Panthers, Gay Liberationists, Latino rights organizations, farmers, unions and Native American rights activists. [/FONT]
You're doing it, again, incidentally.
Only when it is a self-evident truth.
That's not what I said. I'm not abandoning theory. Only the working class can overthrow capitalism, and only when the material conditions are right. In a non-Revolutionary time period, where the conditions are not right, it is the task of the Radical Left to work as the advance guard (The word; 'vanguard' is too loaded.) for the working class, fighting to protect the working class, when necessary, and, when at all possible; advancing the interests of the working class so that they may get to the place where they can seize control of the means of production.
If you don't care about poor children eating, or workers having decent medical care; I can't see what attracts you to Socialism.
I don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. I don't obstinately insist on everything I want, this exact minute, or else, thereby ensuring I get nothing I want. That's pretty much the definition of ultra-Leftism. That's why you're an ultra-Leftist. Unfortunately; it seems to be epidemic.
Not in the English language, it isn't.
The predations of capitalism are not exclusively visited upon homosexuals.
From that standpoint; why do anything, at all? Why support unions? We object to capitalism. Unions imply capitalism; so fuck 'em. Why should we give a shit about reproductive rights? Capitalism will exist, irrespective of the legality, or accessibility of contraception, or abortion. This is the inevitable conclusion to your line of reasoning. Paralysis. Ineffectuality. Because even the biggest step is just that; a step, which means accepting something less than perfection, which, in your mind, is ideological treason. Therefore; we should do nothing. This epidemic of ultra-Leftism which has infected the Radical Left is the precise reason why it is becoming increasing ineffective, and irrelevant, and why the gains of the past are being eroded. This regression will continue to get worse until the infection is cured. You may not be susceptible to reason, but I'm hoping that somebody is.
Not only are they inseparable; they are the same thing. That's what I've been saying. Legalizing gay marriage empowers the working class because it removes an institutional barrier that divides the working class, and weakens the working class, just as collective bargaining strengthens union workers by allowing them some control over their productive lives, as well as a higher standard of living, which is equally empowering.
I want the Radical Left to be relevant to the working class. Right now; it isn't. We have no effect on the working class, no relationship with the working class. We, to the limited extent that we are a; 'we', are an increasingly marginal cult. We are playing Socialist Dungeons & Dragons.
Marx said the point was to change the world.
That's completely uncalled for, and completely false. All of the aforementioned statements, in fact; the entire archived record of my posts, is completely consistent with Anarchism.
Last edited by NGNM85; 22nd January 2013 at 18:40.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
On what fucking spectrum are all of us ultra-left? Again you have no earthly idea of what you're talking about?
Is this the same spectrum you use that has Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton on the "left"?
'Ultra-leftism' is an unfortunate perversion of Socialism. Lenin wrote all about in; Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I may not agree with everything Lenin said, or even most of it, but he was correct in identifying this phenomena, which existed in his day, and seems to have infected the majority of the Radical Left, yourself included, no offense. Ultra-Leftism refers to the unfortunate tendency of some Radicals to wildly overestimate, or completely disregard the material reality of their circumstances taking a hypermilitant posture that is totally counterproductive. Ultra-lefts see every form of incrementalism as treason, so they oppose everything, and do nothing. Because of this; they also tend to view the history of Radicalism as a history of failure because, obviously, we have not achieved Socialism, therefore; every 'achievement' by earlier generations of Radicals was, in truth, not an achievement, at all, and said individuals are traitors, hypocrites, etc. Ultra-leftists are primarily concerned with appearances, over reality. They tend to obsess about things like; 'ideological purity.' You can read Lenin, if you want more insight. However; I would caution anyone to read most of Lenin's writings with a filter, lest they pick up some even worse ideas.
I've been aware of this phenomenon, for some time, I just didn't know it
had a name.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Some aspects of conservative morality have a rational basis and are evolutionary.
The only reason homosexuals can be homosexuals is because of patriarchy and heterosexual relationships. The only reason they are alive is because of heterosexual sex. They don't want to take part in patriarchy, have children and be fathers. Yet the only reason they can make those choices and do those things is because other humans before them took on those responsibilities and created life in the first place. Their entire reason d etre owes itself to the thing that they reject.
(I'm just thinking out loud here because whilst progressive arguments about economics have always made sense to me over time and arguments for racial equality have passed straight through and made perfect sense, some aspects of "Gay rights" arguments and feminism have never sat well with me for some reason, even after reading and discussing it a lot. Perhaps I'm a bigot or a homophobe, but I don't think that I am. )
It is an inherently more selfish lifestyle than heterosexual relationships. That does not make it bad and in a democratic society people should be free to live whatever way they choose. However people are happier when they are less selfish and people in positions of power and dominance in society should be setting an example and not condoning it culturally by legalizing same sex marriage if they have peoples welfare at heart rather than political gesturing and point scoring.
Last edited by graffic; 22nd January 2013 at 18:49.
Gay dudes can certainly have kids, be dads, and be patriarchal fuckwits.
Gay people can also be women.
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Only because other people had heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex has important symbolism because it is our whole reason d'etre. It's the whole reason I am typing this now. It should be respected more than any other sex act and held in higher regard by anyone with self respect.
And I agree that homosexuality is natural in some cases however the reason it shouldn't be encouraged culturally is that there are plenty of people who swing both ways or with homosexual tendencies who should be encouraged to opt for the traditional model which is better and more fulfilling than be pressured to be out and proud and live for themselves.
That passes the litmus test, which is; anything, at all. Nothing is too great, or too small. Nothing. That's the only consistent approach.
Second; the difference isn't that small, in many cases. If things had gone differently this November; the Affordable healthcare would have been repealed, and that's 31 million workers without insurance. That's a big deal. This administration is likely to get one, two, maybe even three Supreme Court picks. They've got five Reactionaries up there. With six; they could overturn Roe, and then abortion would be illegal in half the country, at least. Both Governor Romney, and Paul Ryan were very explicit about that. Those aren't little things.
...and the Republicans are even further to the Right of that, just slightly to the Left of Mussolini.
Not equally, there are differences, although they are not very large, in most cases.
That's not what I said, at all. I said that; in the absence of a viable party to their Left, you should vote Democratic, if you live in a swing state, or a contested district. Furthermore; you should do so without illusions, and without perpetuating illusions. This is not rocket science. If you're talking to workers about their interests and they conclude that they are better off voting Republican; you really suck at it. There's absolutely no reason why we should ever have to internalize or reinforce any illusions.
Yes.
Yes.
Without getting off track; this really irks me. I spend half my time on here defending myself against accusations of supporting positions I've vehemently, repeatedly, and explicitly OPPOSED. It becomes difficult to believe that this 'misunderstanding' is not deliberate. That; or people are so ideological, or partisan that they can't allow themselves to comprehend what I actually said.
I've never asked for more than that. I would never ask for more than that. The only 'support', which really shouldn't even be called that, that I would recommend, for the Democratic, would be electoral, and totally conditional, conditional on the fact that there is no viable party to their Left. I'd love to see one, believe me. I'd vote for them, in a heartbeat.
It does if you live in a swing state, or a contested district. That's an empirical fact. Not voting, or voting for an unelectable candidate, regardless of your political orientation, only benefits the other side of the political spectrum. So; if you live in a swing state, or a contested district; you've basically been voting Republican, this whole time. I'd urge you to reconsider this.
Join the club. However; there are only two viable parties, and the other one is worse. You need to cure yourself of the misconception that taking no action absolves you of responsibility. This was one of the primary articles of faith of the Radical movements of the 60's, particularly the anti-war movement; there is no such thing as an innocent bystander, in politics. You are equally responsible for the choices you don't make. Like Howard Zinn said; 'You can't be neutral on a moving train.'
Last edited by NGNM85; 22nd January 2013 at 19:26.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
