We Are So Enlightened...

[CivilDiscourse]

My mom bought me a cheap dictionary for my birthday. I was very [looks up word] greatful.

Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

[rogue06]

His language is slightly fascistic.

So, a liberal.

[CivilDiscourse]

His language is slightly fascistic.

He's not saying that you can't have an opinion. However, he's saying that your freedom to express that opinion does not mean you have freedom from consequences for expressing them.

[Mountain Man]

He's not saying that you can't have an opinion. However, he's saying that your freedom to express that opinion does not mean you have freedom from consequences for expressing them.

No, what I'm saying is that the modern liberal's call for tolerance is hypocritical, because as soon as you say something they don't like, they demand that you sit down, shut up, and keep your opinions to yourself. Liberals are no longer ardent defenders of free speech like they were in the good ol' days.

[CivilDiscourse]

No, what I'm saying is that the modern liberal's call for tolerance is hypocritical, because as soon as you say something they don't like, they demand that you sit down, shut up, and keep your opinions to yourself. Liberals are no longer ardent defenders of free speech like they were in the good ol' days.

I understand. One of their favorite excuses when called out on it is "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences".

[NorrinRadd]

I was under the impression that paedophilia and bestiality were already illegal.

As to trying to stop adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality - good luck with that.

N.B. No once can change their sex they can only change their gender.

I must have missed something. Where did the topic of "legality" enter the discussion?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I must have missed something. Where did the topic of "legality" enter the discussion?

How else would you propose to bring about your ideal?

[NorrinRadd]

How else would you propose to bring about your ideal?

In a church, those who stubbornly refuse to abide by proper morals would be expelled; but of course now this only means they would find a more agreeable church.

In society at large, laws would be required, but I would only support enacting them if they could be justified on non-religious grounds.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In society at large, laws would be required, but I would only support enacting them if they could be justified on non-religious grounds.

And what justification might that entail? Concerning adultery, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex could that not be considered to be an attempt by government to interfere in the freedoms of legally of age and mutually consenting individuals?

It strikes me that you are quite keen on "freedom" except when it comes to actions or behaviours of which you do not approve.

[NorrinRadd]

And what justification might that entail?

I don't know. I'd have to see it presented.

I'll also note that while "Because the Bible says so" would not be a sufficient reason for me to support enacting a law, it would be enough reason for me to not support attempts to remove a law already in place.

Concerning adultery, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex could that not be considered to be an attempt by government to interfere in the freedoms of legally of age and mutually consenting individuals?

Obviously. I am definitely not a pure libertarian.

It strikes me that you are quite keen on "freedom" except when it comes to actions or behaviours of which you do not approve.

I'm sure no one is entirely free of a bit of "Do as I say, not as I do / Rules for thee and not for me."

I will note that back in my dating days, I would not have "liked" laws prohibiting premarital sex, but as a Christian, would not have believed such laws inappropriate. One can believe certain practices should be prohibited even if one enjoys those practices.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't know. I'd have to see it presented.

Have you no ideas of your own on this matter?

Obviously. I am definitely not a pure libertarian.

I find it interesting that you are prepared to endorse government interference to curtail the freedoms of other legally of age and consenting individuals, merely because they may engage in behaviours of which you do not approve but you resist government interference over your own freedoms in other areas.

I'm sure no one is entirely free of a bit of "Do as I say, not as I do / Rules for thee and not for me."

You have been somewhat obvious in your double standards.

I will note that back in my dating days, I would not have "liked" laws prohibiting premarital sex, but as a Christian, would not have believed such laws inappropriate. One can believe certain practices should be prohibited even if one enjoys those practices.

That reads rather like a habitual thief commenting on her/his approval for the legislation against stealing.