Bottom line about this whole public sexual-morality complex regarding abortion, contraception, “pornography”/”obscenity”/”indecency”, pre/extramarital sex etc, is …. how many restrictionists are willing to fight or encourage their military-age descendants to fight Revolution/Civil War II over this?

Would they be willing to use NBC weaponry to advance their cause?

P.S. When internal economic, political and/or social conflicts deteriorate to the extent of open warfare with the objective of overthrowing the established authority, they’re called “revolutions” when they succeed and “civil wars” when they fail.

If the USA were to have a second Civil War, do keep in mind the political fault lines in the American body politic are still present 140+ years later, and recovery from the War Between the States took a good 30 years, that is when the decision-makers of the 1850s and 1860s on all sides had aged out of the System.

With todays weapons of mass destruction I don’t think a second American Civil War would be recoverable.

It’s all good. I quite enjoy giving libs a good ribbing now and then. Lord knows they deserve it. I still haven’t figured out the “religious sermonizing” part – I guess “God Bless America” was over the top

On February 11th, 2008 at 9:41 pm, dakine said:
fourstring, very impressive use of demagoguery, hyperbole, self-righteous religious sermonizing and intellectual dishonesty to make a point. Well done. BTW, I talk stink to soap brah because he’s an insufferable tool. Sweet ride as an aside.

Impressive vocab. Any 5watt can use a dictionary. If it were not for insults, you would add nothing to this site. Be that as it may, those of us you have insulted take it as an honor.

On February 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm, dakine said:
box, not sure what more to say about you.

Then try saying nada to or about me as you are really starting to look foolish.

I think it’s pertinent to point out that, even without a Booze Week, college kids still figure out how to get alcohol, mix drinks, and get drunk. So why is it again that Sex Week is so important to their education?

By the way, would anyone be upset if Yale offered a seminar on mixed drinks, wines, and beers.

Yes, I would be, for one. The purpose of institutions of higher learning is not to teach kids how to mix drinks, or have sex, or coddle people.

Would you answer yes or no to the following:
(Or would you say that these questions cannot be answered with a yes or a no-which itself is an answer that speaks volumes.)

Is the public promotion and celebration of pornography right or wrong?
(I’m not talking about a rare flip through a skin mag, or rare watching of a skin flick.)

Is the use of abortion to rid a woman of an inconvenience right or wrong?
(I’m not talking about when the health/life of the mother are actually at risk.)

Is marriage the union of one man and one woman?

Do humans have a soul?
Or, do physics and chemistry explain, and account for everything – everything?

Is the fertilized ovum a human (even though it cannot vote) with a soul? Or, is it just a blob of tissue?

Are all cultures really just as good as all others; or, are some actually significantly better than others?

No time to list any more right now.

As to the topic at hand, Rusty and his ready defenders are so quick to point out the benefits of pornography to society, yet quickly dismiss the detriments as inconvenient anomalies.

I’d argue that there are more negative aspects to pornography than positive. Same for alcohol, fatty foods, tobacco, guns, swear words and all sorts of other things that adults should be allowed to enjoy responsibly.

By the way, would anyone be upset if Yale offered a seminar on mixed drinks, wines, and beers. Would any one be willing to argue that pornography is more harmful than alcohol? Because that would be all sorts of crazy. Yet there is no way that would generate the same amount of outrage.

Perhaps it is more of a difference in determining what is right and what is wrong.

Because we differ in that, does not in any way make me a relativist. (I have no idea what the word progressive means in the context of your statement.)

I can have a consistent black and white view of the world that differs from yours. What makes your view more correct than mine?

And when these strict views of right and wrong (whether yours or mine) meet with real world situations, they usually require the wisdom of a judge (or a Solomon) to make a decision.

You have strong moral values. So do I. If those values differ, how can that be?

This “brutally honest traditionalist” line of reasoning is ripe for abuse in more violent hands.

I’d much rather have a reasoned discussion on what those moral and ethical values should be than to declare that there can be no understanding. But that, like this comment, would be off topic.

“Morality is not subject to the changing whims of one society. Just as stealing is always wrong, and lying is always bad, sex-for-money and devaluing human life (by objectifying women and men both as sexual means to sexual ends) is and always has been bad.”

Exactly.
There is right…and there is wrong.
There is good…and there is bad.

#173 On February 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm, DougT said:

“granite (#172)

That answer, attitude, and approach to the discussion doesn’t bode well for the growth and acceptance of conservative principles.

If you are dismissive there’s no chance to bridge the “cosmic gulf”.

Of course, if you’re saying that you’re views aren’t understandable, then I won’t press. (And I meant that last line to be read tongue in cheek, not mean-spirited.)”

That’s the point.
I’m not being dismissive – just brutally honest.
There IS no chance to bridge the cosmic gulf.
As long as traditionalists believe there are such things as right and wrong, and good and bad; but progressives/relativists believe that right and wrong are meaningless terms, there can be, and never will be, any bridging of this gulf.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable – sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

I have come to the conclusion the Rusty is either a condom distributor, a porn producer, or a horny co-ed who can’t admit he enjoys a hot shower with his rommate.

I kid because I care. Don’t get your shorts in a bunch.

As to the topic at hand, Rusty and his ready defenders are so quick to point out the benefits of pornography to society, yet quickly dismiss the detriments as inconvenient anomalies. They are delusional. They also make the point that pornography has now BECOME morally acceptable because it is widely accepted. Wrong again. Morality is not subject to the changing whims of one society. Just as stealing is always wrong, and lying is always bad, sex-for-money and devaluing human life (by objectifying women and men both as sexual means to sexual ends) is and always has been bad.

I suppose Rusty and his cohorts support the prostitution industry as well. After all, if the goal is sexual release without all the pesky emotional baggage, what could be better than sacking a random girl for half an hour? You get relase, she gets paid!

I’m thankful for the many of you on this site who see through this ruse for what it is. It gives me hope for the future, knowing maybe, just maybe, I can raise my kids in a world without subjecting them to the kind of moral turpitude so beloved by Rusty & co.

Thank you, and God bless America.