tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5974454118237833690..comments2024-03-19T02:31:02.140-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Diminishing marginal returnsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59221966752567215832012-03-07T20:28:59.843-08:002012-03-07T20:28:59.843-08:00While discussing the topic of proposition 8 and sa...While discussing the topic of proposition 8 and same sex marriage with a friend a few years ago, he explained marriage to me from a unique perspective that has stuck with me ever since. He said that marriage and it's definition is a religious concept that has been adopted into civil law from centuries of tradition and culture, that is not only accepted in America but is shared by the majority of the people in the entire world.<br /><br />So supporters of same sex marriage are basically asking an entire culture to redefine its traditions and values, something which flies in the face of why cultures exist. Consider this definition of culture: <br /><br />"Culture is a bond that ties the people of a region or community together. It is that one common bond, which brings the people of a community together. The customs and traditions that the people of a community follow, the festivals they celebrate, the kind of clothing they wear, the food they eat, and most importantly, the cultural values they adhere to, bind them together." (Oak)<br /><br />By this definition there is no greater common community bond than marriage. It is the singular tradition that ties every culture in America, the basic definition of which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. <br /><br />From this perspective no one should wonder why there is so much opposition to changing the definition of marriage. Not only because 'same sex marriage' in and of itself is an oxymoron, but because it is asking every culture in America to accept the redefining of a tradition that has been so valued that it is the only religious concept to be adopted into civil law while the state holds all others separate. To force the civil definition of marriage to be changed is the same as forcing the descendants of every immigrant who came to America for the purpose of escaping religious persecution to change their most deeply held religious belief - in this case the sacred bond between a man and a woman: marriage.<br /><br />Perhaps, rather than redefine a sacred religious concept held by millions in America and billions throughout the world, the best solution is to remove marriage from the books of civil law altogether and replace it with a nonreligious term that can be universally accepted since redefining marriage would only be perceived as religious persecution. This way we still uphold one of the greatest principles upon which this nation is founded, the freedom of religion. And marriage would then be left to the individual to hold sacred as they choose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-92026994089877345862011-10-03T22:53:47.338-07:002011-10-03T22:53:47.338-07:00Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right...<i>Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right to get married? This is something that is a private matter that doesen't affect other people negatively in any way.</i><br /><br />Bullshit. If it didn't affect other people, they wouldn't be able to confer a "right" to get married. You'd just do it. You'd exchange vows and try to keep them.<br /><br />But you don't want the right to get married. You want the right to get married AND the "right" to have the rest of us force your partner to behave himself AND the "right" to welfare goodies from employers and government.<br /><br />In other words, EVERYTHING you want is something that affects us.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73703268728060117252011-10-03T22:44:48.176-07:002011-10-03T22:44:48.176-07:00Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right...<i>Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right to get married?</i><br /><br />Who gave non-gays the right to define marriage? Oh, yeah, you!<br /><br />Gays can now, and always have been able to, get married on their own terms. Your problem is that others don't accept it. You're the one attempting to use force to get what you want.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7289901711160695802011-10-03T22:39:55.233-07:002011-10-03T22:39:55.233-07:00POPULAR VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO REMOVE OR REFUSE TO...<i>POPULAR VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO REMOVE OR REFUSE TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF PEOPLE.</i><br /><br />Think about what you're saying. You don't have the "right" to force the rest of us to enforce any promises you make or unions you enter into with your homosexual lover. So of course we can't "remove" or "refuse" such a (non-existent) right.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33336207564135874852011-10-03T22:19:43.848-07:002011-10-03T22:19:43.848-07:00The flip-side: Why are Republicans obsessed with t...<i>The flip-side: Why are Republicans obsessed with this marginal issue? </i><br /><br />Same reason the Democrats are. They're being manipulated to distract them from the big issues. They're being manipulated to fight each other rather than their oppressive rulers.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72670691322499434302011-10-03T22:13:14.946-07:002011-10-03T22:13:14.946-07:00Furries.
Sat next to one on an airplane once.<i>Furries.</i><br /><br />Sat next to one on an airplane once.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51255443569028228152011-10-03T06:51:16.455-07:002011-10-03T06:51:16.455-07:00@svigLibertards: no balls. Just a bunch of whining...@svig<i>Libertards: no balls. Just a bunch of whining about homo and druggie rights.</i><br />and open borders - that's the other part of their 'brave' 'radical' stance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35189581858417367202011-10-03T04:40:47.551-07:002011-10-03T04:40:47.551-07:00@Youth
"Having thought about it fit a few day...@Youth<br />"Having thought about it fit a few days, I'm not sure that the age of consent lowering is a winner for the lefties."<br /><br />Don't forget it's higher in the US than most other western countries.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_EuropeWandrinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88753259327177382142011-10-02T15:09:57.391-07:002011-10-02T15:09:57.391-07:00@ anon libertariantard
so all you have left is cal...@ anon libertariantard<br /><i>so all you have left is calling me names or insulting my character</i><br />umm read back on your posts, calling everyone bigots, saying we're all intolerant and what to control everyone, demonizing Christianity and, indeed religion on the whole... then you say you're feelings are hurt?<br />Very typical super narcissistic ...what are you ... 19 or something?? result of the 'self esteem ' generation.<br /><br />BTW I HOPE you are no older than 19..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22136264519563429232011-10-02T13:46:22.689-07:002011-10-02T13:46:22.689-07:00This your first rodeo?
svig, you crack me up.
@an...<i>This your first rodeo?</i><br />svig, you crack me up.<br /><br />@anon libertard:<br /><i>hat is deviant about two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their homes?</i><br />whoa there bigot, why should have to be in their own homes? Its just between them, right? So they can boo-foo whereever they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45745390121424722662011-10-02T13:36:45.816-07:002011-10-02T13:36:45.816-07:00After demise of ‘don’t ask,’ activists call for en...After demise of ‘don’t ask,’ activists call for end to military ban on transgenders<br /><br />With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.<br /><br />“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.<br /><br />The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military’s gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.”<br /><br />http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/ELVISNIXON.comhttp://www.elvisnixon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6350288495091497182011-10-02T05:38:49.416-07:002011-10-02T05:38:49.416-07:00Your anger is hilarious. See what I mean about mak...<i>Your anger is hilarious. See what I mean about making ad hominem invective? You guys simply cannot argue with me intellectually, so all you have left is calling me names or insulting my character. Pathetic.</i><br /><br />"You guys" is a sloppy tactic. Grouping your opponents more narrowly is a usually a sloppy tactic, but "you guys" is really bad. You just rolled a very diverse group into "you guys," and <i>we're</i> pathetic?<br /><br />Of course libertardianism can be opposed intellectually. E.g., like so: "personal freedom is not the highest good; ergo, a system that enshrines personal freedom as the highest (only?) good is way off-kilter." Libertardians ignore the group, at best, and are hostile to the group at worst. BTW, I call libertarians libertardians because so many of you fit the bill; I don't make an argument out of it. You think one sentence, one principle, sums shit up. It doesn't. I've tried a couple times to get even internal consistency from libertardians - no dice; never mind some flex.<br /><br />As to your whining about control, see, that's how libertardians alienate people; you just rolled everyone arguing with you here up into "you people" and called them "conservatives" (I am not a conservative, period) and accused them of being control freaks. Fella, I'm so far from a control freak it's not even funny. And I share a lot of libertarian sentiments (I echo many of them in my line of attack against Big Government liberalism, authoritarian multicultism, and PC), but I have to pull up short because none of you guys actually believes in freedom, AFAICT. You all seem pretty PC to me. Do any of you guys acknowledge the right of individuals to come together and form communities as they see fit? Not that I can see. Do any of you guys acknowledge the right of individuals to form states as they see fit? How about control their own borders? Do any of you support the end of so-called "anti-discrimination" laws? Most of you seem content to see trampled the rights of people to discriminate and form their own communities, or police their own borders, while you bitch about drug laws.<br /><br />No balls, IMO.<br /><br /><i>As for your claim that homosexuality is maladaptive, what do you mean by this? Maladaptive biologically? Not true, otherwise it wouldn't exist in the first place.</i><br /><br />So, you're about as green as they come then. Naturalistic fallacy, now? Down's Syndrome wouldn't exist if it were maladaptive? This your first rodeo?<br /><br />I noticed you just whistled right past the graveyard vis-a-vis my previous comment.<br /><br />Libertards: no balls. Just a bunch of whining about homo and druggie rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61468640480613787862011-10-02T03:39:11.993-07:002011-10-02T03:39:11.993-07:00As usual some clueless nerd appears to make a stat...As usual some clueless nerd appears to make a statement in denial of social cohesion or the importance to a community of controlling the deviant behavior of its members. WHAT IT'S JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS YOU BIGOTED MONSTER *ignores mounds of data that homosexuality is maladaptive, coincides with other behavioral problems, is symptomatic of serious social corrosion, etc etc*<br /><br /> Your anger is hilarious. See what I mean about making ad hominem invective? You guys simply cannot argue with me intellectually, so all you have left is calling me names or insulting my character. Pathetic.<br /><br /> Now for your "argument". What do you mean "deviant behavior"? How do you define it? What is deviant about two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their homes? Just because you find it reoulsive, that is not reason enough to ban it. I find your conservatives and your prejudice and need to control your fellow Human Beings no matter how miserable that makes them for no reason whatsoever to be repulsive, and yet I respect your right to live conservative lifestyles as long as you don't interfere with my life. The problem is, you see, that you do. The need to control people is like a mental illness to you conservatives. You just HAVE to control people. It seems like you cannot be happy unless everyone is obeying your strict moral code, even if the violation of this moral code causes you or anyone else NO HARM.<br /><br /> As for your claim that homosexuality is maladaptive, what do you mean by this? Maladaptive biologically? Not true, otherwise it wouldn't exist in the first place. Secondly, even if it weren't, so what? Nowadays we have artificial inemination, and lots of straight couples don't have kids anymore. Also, it is a value-judgement that the purpose of sex for a Human Being is reproduction. I would say that the sensual and hedonistic aspect of it is as relevant or even more than the procreative aspect of it. As for it coinciding with other behavioral problems, what do you mean by that? Gays for the most part earn more money, are better educated and committ far less violent crime than heterosexual men. I would say that male heterosexuality correlates a lot more with behavioral problem, since straight men committ 99% of all homicides and rapes. As for it coinciding with societal decay, that is another value-judgement that you are making. Your paradise is another person's hell. Gay men for the most part keep to themselves, committ far less violent crime than straight men and tend to be more civil in general. Now, they do have much higher levels of promiscuity and thus venereal disease infection than straight men, but that is voluntary sex, and any adult should know that you should wear protection when you have sex and that having sex even with protection is risky. But as long as they don't force sex on others like so many heterosexual men do, this is a private matter and nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21427764799583450612011-10-01T21:15:54.941-07:002011-10-01T21:15:54.941-07:00"My guess is biggest aim of activism will be ..."My guess is biggest aim of activism will be the complete antithesis of your citizenism, the push for our government to give the same rights to everyone in the world that it gives its own citizens"<br /><br />I think we have a winner!Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25971382149540855122011-10-01T20:48:30.785-07:002011-10-01T20:48:30.785-07:00Having thought about it fit a few days, I'm no...Having thought about it fit a few days, I'm not sure that the age of consent lowering is a winner for the lefties. The problem for them is that everybody has been a kid at some point and so 1) everybody inherently knows it's a bad idea and 2) they can't use the "you don't understand" meme. 1 is no big problem for them, they constantly convince people that what they know inherently is just irrational baggage, but 2 is a problem because that is their go to play "you don't understand what it is to be black, gay, trans, etc" but we all do damn well know what it's like to be young and so we are ok with saying 40 year olds can't have sex with 16 year olds. <br /><br />So, I don't know. Swingers? Weird multi partner arrangements (much more pallatable to fems than polg)? Im sure gays will be pushing into recognizing gay kids earlier and earlier, but I don't know how big an issue it can be before puberty.<br /><br />Ugliness and shortness are on the horizon. Ugliness really is going to take on class implications more than in the past with the advent of plastic surgery. Expect to see more activism for ugly, short and to a lesser degree fat folk. The problem for uglies is of course that as a group, they arent self aware and the smart, rich ones can buy their way out (to some degree)<br /><br />My guess is biggest aim of activism will be the complete antithesis of your citizenship, the push for our government to give the same rights to everyone in the world that it gives its own citizensYouthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52071355976560185332011-10-01T10:04:36.427-07:002011-10-01T10:04:36.427-07:00Of course not. A gay man who contracts AIDS should...<i>Of course not. A gay man who contracts AIDS should pay his own medical bills. Do you even know what libertarianism is? It states that, as long as you don't use force on others, you should be allowed to live your life as you want.</i><br /><br />In which case, we have a reverse "No True Scotsman" thing going on, because, what, under 1% of libertarians acknowledge the right of individuals to form communities they way they wish? How many libtards oppose so-called "anti-discrimination" laws? I suppose they can be forgiven for falling short of their ideals precisely where they'd show the most courage in upholding them, just sayin', it's annoying. And it makes it impossible for me to take them seriously, since they make such a point of being principled all the time, right up until it point at which it takes some balls...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25832561632093145042011-10-01T09:59:22.246-07:002011-10-01T09:59:22.246-07:00Fair enough, I misread what you were saying. Sorry...<i>Fair enough, I misread what you were saying. Sorry.</i><br /><br />No sweat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83448146585288738242011-10-01T09:44:19.392-07:002011-10-01T09:44:19.392-07:00This is something that is a private matter that do...<i>This is something that is a private matter that doesen't affect other people negatively in any way.<br /></i><br />illinois just banned catholic and christian adaption agencies who won't accept gay 'parents' in Mass. you can be in violation of the law for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. your five year old kid is now forced to read books with equal number of gay couples.<br /><br />this is about homos, this about using homos to destroy western civilization a project that cultural marxists have been successfully engaging in since they came here after being booted out of germany.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33085891391205768242011-10-01T01:37:52.911-07:002011-10-01T01:37:52.911-07:00This is libertarianism. The only truly rational sy...<i>This is libertarianism. The only truly rational system of Human interactions.</i><br /><br />I got a good laugh out of this one. Your first problem is that human beings aren't reliably rational. Your second problem is your crippling case of Aspergers.Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1111425379184953092011-10-01T01:31:26.133-07:002011-10-01T01:31:26.133-07:00Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right...<i>Also, what is the problem of giving gays the right to get married? This is something that is a private matter that doesen't affect other people negatively in any way.</i><br /><br />As usual some clueless nerd appears to make a statement in denial of social cohesion or the importance to a community of controlling the deviant behavior of its members. WHAT IT'S JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS YOU BIGOTED MONSTER *ignores mounds of data that homosexuality is maladaptive, coincides with other behavioral problems, is symptomatic of serious social corrosion, etc etc*Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37853873758847066562011-10-01T00:29:59.397-07:002011-10-01T00:29:59.397-07:00Also, a counter argument to all the cultural marxi...Also, a counter argument to all the cultural marxist attacks can be a generic social cohesion one.<br /><br />If you imagine a society with six moral topics where 90% of the society agree a, b, c is good and x, y, z is bad that creates a lot of social cohesion and social cohesion is a public good separate from and regardless of the details of the six topics.<br /><br />If that principle is accepted then i think you can make the case that changing any of those topics should only be done by consensus.<br /><br />If someone thinks the social consensus on topic x is wrong they should be free to argue their case but any change must be consensual to maintain social cohesion i.e cohesion becomes the greater good.<br /><br />What cultural marxists want quite specifically is the opposite of this. They want conflict and division and they go about it by deliberately trying to ram changes through before there is consensus because that creates the most division and conflict.<br /><br />People in India, Japan, Taiwan etc should be starting to see the first stages of this process in their countries.Wandrinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50226920642656290352011-10-01T00:15:26.903-07:002011-10-01T00:15:26.903-07:00The driving forces behind all this are:
1) The in...The driving forces behind all this are:<br /><br />1) The individuals actually concerned e.g homosexuals, transgendered.<br /><br />2) SWPLs who like to take positions on the opposite side of the majority when it comes to moral dividing lines as it makes them feel special. It's similar to the kind of music fan who only like bands when they're obscure and loses interest when they become famous.<br /><br />3) Cultural marxists who, regardless of their personal beliefs seek to destroy social cohesion by attacking everything that is commonly held, whether it be a historical fact or a moral precept. If a majority think x is right, true or normal then cultural marxists will attack x.<br /><br />Say you have six people and three topics x, y and z and initially all six people think x is right, y is true and z is normal. It doesn't matter what x, y and z are or whether the six people are correct in their belief it is the *agreement* between those six people that creates group cohesion.<br /><br />A cultural marxist will promote that x is wrong, y is false and z is abnormal to try and get those six people to have six different combinations of what is right, true and normal and through that destroy any group cohesion.<br /><br />Lenin<br />Power = mass x cohesion<br /><br />@@@<br /><br />I'd say some of the contenders would be<br /><br />transgender<br />polygamy<br />public sex / kinks<br />age of consent<br />paedophilia<br />incest<br />bestiality<br /><br />I'd expect movement in all of these areas but looking at them in terms of the three groups listed above<br />- number of practitioners<br />- scope for SWPL moral superiority<br />- scope for social destructiveness<br /><br />i'd suggest polygamy where there is a large muslim population and age of consent where there isn't.<br /><br />So in terms of energy allocated i'd think<br />- polygamy (europe)<br />- age of consent (US)<br />- incest<br />- paedophilia<br />- public sex / kinks<br />- transgender<br />- bestialityWandrinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21255068048098828332011-09-30T19:35:41.205-07:002011-09-30T19:35:41.205-07:00the Illinois adoption agency that helped her and h...the Illinois adoption agency that helped her and her husband adopt their four children is closing, thanks to the advance of special rights being granted on the basis of sexual orientation.<br /><br />How is this possible? This past June, the Illinois Legislature legalized same-sex civil unions, including "religious protections" for those with deeply held religious beliefs. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the protections simply weren't enough, and now faith-based adoption services in the state are being forced to either place children into homes with same-sex couples or face losing their contract with the state.Freddy Rumsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54855670350716283602011-09-30T14:52:54.091-07:002011-09-30T14:52:54.091-07:00'svigor:
Fair enough, I misread what you were...<i>'svigor:<br /><br />Fair enough, I misread what you were saying. Sorry."</i><br /><br />So he rates an apology and I don't? You did address both of us.<br /><br />I don't appreciate being called to account for what I didn't say any more than Svigor does.Kylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71509861673185192662011-09-30T13:22:47.624-07:002011-09-30T13:22:47.624-07:00"...And then gays expect me to paid for their..."...And then gays expect me to paid for their AIDS medication..."<br /><br /> Of course not. A gay man who contracts AIDS should pay his own medical bills. Do you even know what libertarianism is? It states that, as long as you don't use force on others, you should be allowed to live your life as you want. This means you should do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others but that you also should live with the consequences of your decisions. That means that heroin should be legalized, but if you try it and get hooked, then you must pay your own treatment or support your own habit and if you harm others to get money to buy it, then you should PAY BIG WITH IMPRISONMENT. the same regarding sexuality. Fully consenting adults should be allowed to have as much sex as they want with as many people as they want, but if they contract diseases or other things like that, then they should fend for themselves and expect no one to help them except voluntarilly. This is libertarianism. The only truly rational system of Human interactions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com