Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .23,94423,94523,94623,94723,94823,94923,950. . .27,76527,766»

Bathera wrote:It wasn't serious question.

FYI I think abortion should be legal it just should be regulated and used when there is no other option, but really my opinion either way doesn't matter because of my biology

Who said I thought I was important?

Owned

“Drugs are bad, mmkay,”

NS issues South Park reference 🗿

Qroma

Hello? Is there a Ramonasche here? I have 10 tons of New Hampshire political ads to deliver.
why, though?
I live in BOSTON.

New Eestiball wrote:Hello? Is there a Ramonasche here? I have 10 tons of New Hampshire political ads to deliver.
why, though?
I live in BOSTON.

Bean city (There are no beans)

Post by Westcats suppressed by a moderator.

Apparently dearest Clarence Thomas is pushing to overrule Lawrence v Texas

Dear me, we had this figured out in 1791
You know it's getting bad when modern politicians emulate the ancien régime

Maesulia

The Oriental Empire wrote:Apparently dearest Clarence Thomas is pushing to overrule Lawrence v Texas

Dear me, we had this figured out in 1791
You know it's getting bad when modern politicians emulate the ancien régime

It is an interesting case to overturn for an attack on the LGBT

Anti-sodomy laws were historically used to attack same-sex couples

Maesulia wrote:It is an interesting case to overturn for an attack on the LGBT

Anti-sodomy laws were historically used to attack same-sex couples

Ai the abortion thing was like 50% of all republican rethoric, whatever will talk about now?

But honestly I really can't fathom why abortion is such a hot topic on the US, if you don't like the idea of an abortion just don't have one? Easy solution, sometimes I just think that they want something to argue about,
Perhaps to distract people for the real problems

The Oriental Empire wrote:Apparently dearest Clarence Thomas is pushing to overrule Lawrence v Texas

Dear me, we had this figured out in 1791
You know it's getting bad when modern politicians emulate the ancien régime

Given how far our world has come, that would be a very sad and severe setback. I do have to add, though, that Clarence lacks both the numbers and the power to reverse it. Gorsuch and probably even Alito would vote against reversing it, as would Roberts.

In several states, it would reinstate the Sodomy Law. That includes any sexual behavior judged "immoral" or "unnatural." Anal, oral, and bestiality are typical components of sodomy. These laws are purely religious in nature.

Maesulia

The Oriental Empire wrote:Ai the abortion thing was like 50% of all republican rethoric, whatever will talk about now?

But honestly I really can't fathom why abortion is such a hot topic on the US, if you don't like the idea of an abortion just don't have one? Easy solution, sometimes I just think that they want something to argue about,
Perhaps to distract people for the real problems

Republican Senators want to turn the US into a Catholic factory

The second coming of Christ hasn’t happened because he was aborted

Maesulia wrote:Republican Senators want to turn the US into a Catholic factory

The second coming of Christ hasn’t happened because he was aborted

Now imagine what the catholic and extreme Christians politicians will say if we get someone like Christoph Schönborn on the papal throne

Especially worrysome since this happened under under a quite "liberal" pope

The Oriental Empire wrote:Now imagine what the catholic and extreme Christians politicians will say if we get someone like Christoph Schönborn on the papal throne

Especially worrysome since this happened under under a quite "liberal" pope

He’s the antichrist

Sailao

Maesulia wrote:Anti-sodomy laws were historically used to attack same-sex couples

Anti means against. I believe you are a little confused about this. The Sodomy Law has been used to target same-sex relationships in the United States. But it's vital to remember that everyone was targeted by religious and moral extremists. Same-sex couples were the target of the Sodomy Law. The goal of Sodomy Ordinances, which are basically laws for a county or city, is to outlaw sexual behavior that occurs outside of marriage or for nonprocreative sexualities.

Only same-sex couples in all forms were targeted by the Sodomy Law in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. Many more States have a variety of Sodomy Ordinances incorporated into state law. Utah is the best illustration of that. The fact that Sodomy Law and Ordinance deliberately set their own age restrictions based on religious beliefs is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Good morning!

Maesulia wrote:Republican Senators want to turn the US into a Catholic factory

The second coming of Christ hasn’t happened because he was aborted

Maesulia wrote:He’s the antichrist

The thing that stands out the most from these two quotes is that you sound similar to someone I know.

Eco-Paris Reformation wrote:Anti means against. I believe you are a little confused about this. The Sodomy Law has been used to target same-sex relationships in the United States. But it's vital to remember that everyone was targeted by religious and moral extremists. Same-sex couples were the target of the Sodomy Law. The goal of Sodomy Ordinances, which are basically laws for a county or city, is to outlaw sexual behavior that occurs outside of marriage or for nonprocreative sexualities.

Only same-sex couples in all forms were targeted by the Sodomy Law in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. Many more States have a variety of Sodomy Ordinances incorporated into state law. Utah is the best illustration of that. The fact that Sodomy Law and Ordinance deliberately set their own age restrictions based on religious beliefs is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Ah, I want to say something a lot longer than this, but the sentence really concludes my opinion. I just don't like it when the state enforces religious teachings aside from the obvious stuff like don't kill. These things usually don't work.

Galway-Dublin wrote:Owned

Not really,

Maesulia wrote:“Regulated”

Because gynecologists and family medicine physicians aren’t already under strict guidelines concerning literally any medical procedure in existence

No I mean it shouldn't be used instead of conteaspives or birth control

But as I said before because of my biology and my living arrangements my opinion doesn't matter

Rary and Sailao

Maesulia

Eco-Paris Reformation wrote:Anti means against. I believe you are a little confused about this. The Sodomy Law has been used to target same-sex relationships in the United States. But it's vital to remember that everyone was targeted by religious and moral extremists. Same-sex couples were the target of the Sodomy Law. The goal of Sodomy Ordinances, which are basically laws for a county or city, is to outlaw sexual behavior that occurs outside of marriage or for nonprocreative sexualities.

Only same-sex couples in all forms were targeted by the Sodomy Law in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. Many more States have a variety of Sodomy Ordinances incorporated into state law. Utah is the best illustration of that. The fact that Sodomy Law and Ordinance deliberately set their own age restrictions based on religious beliefs is one of their biggest shortcomings.

Not saying that sodomy laws were used exclusively to limit the sexual activities of homosexuals, but they often were

I’m aware that during the time period, they were often attacked by religious extremists (I do not know what a moral extremist is)

The main point is when the Republicans have taken a very anti-gay stance, and are actively trying to reverse a descision that protected gays, it seems like its a deliberate attack on gays

Einswenn and Sailao

Bathera wrote:Not really,No I mean it shouldn't be used instead of conteaspives or birth control

But as I said before because of my biology and my living arrangements my opinion doesn't matter

If that's so...

...then your opinion, that your opinions is invalid, is invalid. This makes your opinions valid.

Alright, time to disappear. I have an RP post I have to work on that I've yet to work on.

Sailao wrote:If that's so...

...then your opinion, that your opinions is invalid, is invalid. This makes your opinions valid.

My opinions on obortion are invalid I don't have female anatomy nor am I married to or dating someone with female anatomy

But just because they are invalid doesn't mean I can't have them

Maesulia wrote:-snip-

The Sodomy Laws were frequently used as strict legal guidelines. Moral standards. They were founded on "church laws," and the notion that marriage is sacrosanct was ingrained in them. To see everything as sacrosanct. To them, it is morally reprehensible. One that carries a penalty. Four States passed Sodomy Laws specifically targeting homosexual individuals, while fifteen more did the same for everyone.

This is an assault on all sexual behaviors and rights, not just partnerships between people of the same sex. As a gay man who has been married for 15 years, this sickens me, in general.

Post self-deleted by Maesulia.

Although the term "extremist" is frequently used in a derogatory manner, it is unclear what, if anything, is really extremism. Giving a description of moral extremism as a vice is my approach. It basically involves having moral views that are so strong that they create a moral tunnel vision and block out important opposing factors. For a number of reasons, we should be interested in moral extremism: it has real-world consequences; it is sneaky (because we don't anticipate immorality to result from extreme dedication to morality); and it hasn't received much philosophical attention. I present a number of historical instances of moral extremism and consider their social and political ramifications. I also think about how we should judge those who fall short, whether by going too far in the name of righteousness or by acting contrary to their moral principles. I use the examples of John Brown and John Quincy Adams, who were on opposite ends of this continuum.

Extremism charges are frequently used to attack unpopular viewpoints. Who cares if I'm an extremist or if the viewpoint I'm supporting is extreme if I'm right? Sounds like a reasonable question for someone who is being accused of being an extremist. Three reformers who adopted this line of argument were quoted at the outset. But I've argued that we ought to be concerned about extremism that serves noble goals. On my watch, extremism is a vice. A strong moral conviction that precludes the agent from recognizing or acting on conflicting moral concerns when they are significant is roughly what it entails. I have argued that this vice has historically resulted in adverse consequences. A subtlety was revealed by the discourse of John Brown and John Adams: possibly in exceptional cases, radicals can also bring about some positive effects for a society. A basic takeaway from this conversation is that we should periodically be wary of our own moral convictions, especially those that arouse powerful emotions. We are not always morally upright just because we are passionate about a certain topic. Even our deepest moral convictions might lead us astray because evil can be cunning and sneak up on us.

Eco-Paris Reformation wrote:The Sodomy Laws were frequently used as strict legal guidelines. Moral standards. They were founded on "church laws," and the notion that marriage is sacrosanct was ingrained in them. To see everything as sacrosanct. To them, it is morally reprehensible. One that carries a penalty. Four States passed Sodomy Laws specifically targeting homosexual individuals, while fifteen more did the same for everyone.

This is an assault on all sexual behaviors and rights, not just partnerships between people of the same sex. As a gay man who has been married for 12 years, this sickens me, in general.

I guess one way to pretend to have a moral high ground is my making others confirm to your own morals

[quote=eco-paris_reformation;47983774]R. Maesulia; What is Moral Extremism?

Although the term "extremist" is frequently used in a derogatory manner,..../quote]

Any form of extremism be it political, moral or otherwise will always be a vice for those who believe in themselves and their beliefs to serve higher purposes. Seeing your beliefs no matter what they are in this way is deceptive and dangerous and it very quickly can give you the delusions of grandeur and destiny. To think of your beliefs and act on them in this way, also allows for the justifications of actions one would normally deem unacceptable. And these beliefs lie entirely within the ideological eye of the beholder and can be anything, from communism, an absolute monarchy, thousand-year Reich or primitive collective.

Question...
Can one get fat off of weight loss food?

Maybe we should repeal Marbury v Madison and the SCOTUS will shut up

Regnum Italiae, Laver Island, Qroma, St Scarlett, and 8 othersApabeossie, Rary, Libertandonien, Kanokla, Eco-Paris Reformation, Berlin and Hanover, Ramonasche, and Nyvunnland

«12. . .23,94423,94523,94623,94723,94823,94923,950. . .27,76527,766»

Advertisement