Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 166

Thread: Doc McStuffins promotes LGBT rights, Moms freak out...

  1. #51

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Carbohydrates are only a problem if you don't burn them off. Also, athletes, especially endurance athletes, adapt to long training sessions by enhancing the ability to store glycogen (carbohydrate breakdown product) in muscles and liver. Insulin reaction is much less pronounced than in couch potatoes.
    Oh I'm no athlete. I don't even go to the gym.

    My physical exercise consists of not taking the elevator instead of choosing the stairs at work, and carrying a hand-basket rather than a shopping cart at the grocery store.

  2. #52

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner
    Here's a quiz for you about when you first realized you were heterosexual:
    1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
    Imprinting
    2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?
    Probably around puberty when I began to understand there are different sexual orientations. But the word "decide" is a little misleading here. "Realize" would be more accurate.
    3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?
    Not likely.
    4. Is it possible that your sexual orientation has stemmed from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
    Not likely.
    5. Do your parents know you are straight? Do your friends know? How did they react?
    They all know and none had any discernable reaction because heterosexuality was the assumed norm.
    6. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it just possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
    Not likely.
    7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality…
    In most cases it only appears that way to others who have a different sexual orientation. People are naturally sensitive to perceived differences.
    8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
    The sex drive is very powerful in animals but, unlike most other animals, humans don't have a mating season; they are 'in heat' all year long. It's not so much a heterosexual characteristic as it is a human characteristic.
    9. Why do heterosexuals try to recruit others into this lifestyle?
    They are honestly trying to help others. They see heterosexuality as natural and see any other sexual orientation as unnatural which they take to mean suspicious, unhealthy, and/or evil.
    10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual… Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?
    I question that statistic but since 100% safety is not guaranteed it is a matter of awareness that some risk exists.
    11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?
    Vive la difference! (sorry, couldn't help that)
    12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
    Despite society's expectations humans may not be inherently monogamous.
    13. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?
    I have no idea what a "whole person" is.
    14. Considering the menace of overpopulation how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?
    Self control. In other words, survival is unlikely.
    15. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective - don’t you feel that he or she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his or her leanings?
    Absolutely. Humans are biased.
    16. There seem to very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?
    No. There is no evidence this would lead to happiness.

  3. #53

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    That said, I won't apologize for bringing up conservative viewpoints.
    I'm not asking you to apologize for bringing up conservative viewpoints.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    We're talking about a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Can't help myself vs. personal responsibilty. I'm trying to be one of the few voices saying "You have free will. Difficult as it is sometimes, you CAN decide."
    I don't think that liberal v conservative philosophy can be summed up in those terms.
    It would be rather like trying to sum it up as "conservative thought cares about money, liberal thought cares about people". Is it often summed up that way? Sure! Is this comparison accurate? No.
    Liberal thought agrees that you have free will, and also says you sometimes have to make difficult decisions. Like tolerating things you dislike, because they aren't harmful. Or, more seriously, to weigh carefully the choice of who you want to be - because when many options are open to you, the burden of making the right choices is higher.
    Liberal thought also agrees that each person is responsible for their choices. And, ultimately, for their lives. It simply adds that some people start out from a really bad position, and they may require help to get to what we would consider an acceptable standard. They might not require help, but equally, they might, and for the good of society in general we should provide some. Not because they aren't responsible for their lives, but simply because we're concerned with the end result, and we know that many of them simply won't make it on their own.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    A majority of Americans are obese. Is that something that should be lauded and promoted? Just move the bar and say 'normal'?

    In some places, the majority of kids have one parent. Is THAT something to be lauded and promoted and declared 'normal'?
    Being obese has serious health consequences.
    It is largely caused by poor diets (caused by the fact healthy food is more expensive than junk food) and lack of exercise (caused by the fact that our society is designed around the idea of cars, so most people don't do much walking).
    The first problem can be fixed with a high tax on junk food (including all kinds of soda) and a subsidy for healthy food. If people want to eat junk food, they still can, but the government can and should encourage people, not force, but encourage, people to make the choices which are best for themselves and everyone else in the long run, which is what a tax/subsidy arrangement would do.
    The second problem can be fixed by encouraging the building of incredibly dense cities with huge residential buildings, such that everyone is able to live within walking distance of their workplace, reducing the pollution from cars and encouraging people to get daily exercise by walking to work. This would require abolishing all sorts of conflicting zoning laws, but would ultimately bring down rents, make people healthier, and reduce pollution.

    As to single parents, when most marriages end in divorce, obviously you will end up with lots of single parents. It is inevitable. To answer your question, about whether that is better than the alternative, I would say: yes.
    Put simply, having one parent who loves you and tries to raise you as best they can, is better than having two parents who are constantly fighting because they dislike each other. The former is tough but you have some support. The latter is just a permanently nasty environment to be in.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    My entire family is obese (except for me) and try to tell themselves that I am some kind of genetic freak or throwback. Never mind the thousands upon thousands of miles I put on bike, shoes, swim goggles.
    Well done, but I think you're crediting the wrong thing.
    Last I heard, the energy you actively expend (by exercise) is less than 20% of the total energy your body spends. The vast, vast majority of it is expended by processes which you have little-to-no influence over, things like digestion, breathing, thinking, maintaining your temperature, etc.

    In short: many many people have made a great deal of money peddling exercise machines, routines, diets, and special food to help people lose weight. Almost all of these are scams. There is really only one way to lose weight: consume fewer calories than you naturally burn. This simply means eating fewer calories worth of food. If you consume less than you burn, your body will start losing pounds. It is that simple.

    I mention this because I frequently see people crediting their weight to exercise, or some special diet, and as far as I know, this is all hogwash - it is a dangerous myth that really hurts people trying to control their weight.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    So you develop the bad habit, and one day there is someone on your right trying to cross the street, and you're only looking left, not signaling, so your victim has no warning you're going to turn or that you regard red lights as "suggestions".
    Yes, habits are important, and we should consciously control them, rather than letting them control us.
    The best people have consciously decided which habits to have, and retrained themselves to shed unwanted ones, whilst gaining wanted ones.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    The U.S. has god knows how many trillions in national debt. Do we shrug and say 'new normal', or perhaps consider decisions that don't continue to make it worse?
    Most people agree that the national debt is a problem.
    What they don't agree on is what spending (ie: services) should be cut, or what funding (ie: taxes) should be raised, to make up the deficit.
    They also disagree on what priority it has. Most people consider, say, creating jobs, far more important, as jobs are now, and debt is future. This may be a bad attitude to have, but it is common.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I'm concerned when media help make rationalization too easy. You may or may not have noted that, regarding diapers, I'm always reminding people that it IS a hobby. If it gets out of hand and controls you rather than the other way around, it's a problem.
    This is a valuable reminder.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Yes, Moo, there are gay people who through a series of life events and their own decisions end up with the custody of children. It is what it is at this point, you often can't undo past decisions, but is that something to be promoted and lauded?
    I don't think you understood my example.
    The lesbian couple I know went to a LOT OF EFFORT to have kids.
    They did not have leftover kids from a previous straight relationship. They did not somehow end up with kids.
    They worked for years to arrange everything so they could have kids despite being a lesbian couple. To find a donor, both get pregnant, deliver, have childcare, and be able to raise a family.
    Frankly, YES. If everyone in society put as much thought and care into family planning and thinking out their futures beforehand, society would be better off.

    Don't conflate gay parents with single parents, or people stuck with kids against their will from previous relationships.
    There are lots of gay parents, I suspect the clear majority, who only have kids because they've gone to a LOT OF EFFORT to pursue their dream of having kids. Whether that be by adoption, donor/surrogacy, or whatnot.

    Straight couples can end up with kids from a single lucky/unlucky accident. For gay couples, it takes serious work. Should we promote and laud the fact that some people think it through and work towards it as a goal for years? YES. Frankly I'd like to see more straight couples put that much thought into having kids before they have them.

    More generally, gay parents are good for society. There are a ton of kids with terrible lives in the state foster care system. Gay parents really struggle to reproduce naturally. If gay parents adopted more kids out of the foster system, then not only would these parents have the families they want, but we'd also reduce pressure on state services, and end up with a happier society too. Heck, I think it makes sense for the government to actively reach out to gay couples and encourage them to adopt kids, because it can benefit everyone involved: the parents (who get to have the family they want), the kids (who get a family rather than living in an institution) and the state (who no longer has to pay for their childcare).



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Consider the 10 year old kid who hasn't made any of those decisions yet, and doesn't even know that most of them ARE decisions. All around him/her in the media and in some neighborhoods, real life, are really bad examples of how to live, and more subtle examples telling him/her not to sweat it, its all good, anything goes. It makes a parent's job really difficult when the kid says "but everybody is doing it", and they actually are, at least on their electronic screens. That 10 year old kid has no clue about the consequences a month, a year, a decade out.
    Telling a 10-year-old that someone has two mommies, or two dads, isn't telling them that they should make bad life choices. It is certainly NOT telling them to rush into having kids of their own.
    What it tells them is:
    • There is a diversity of families in the world, which is true, and a useful thing to be aware of.
    • Some parents have to work really, really hard to have / look after their kids, which is also true and useful to know.
    • That if they, or someone they know, turns out to be gay, that's fine, some portion of humans are gay and that's just the way it is. This might seem trite but a message of social acceptance can be literally life-or-death to many gay people. The suicide rate amongst gay people who grow up in communities that discriminate against, hate on, or otherwise try to conceal or alienate gay people is horrible. This is one of the reasons gay people tend to react with outrage to any suggestion that they hide who they are. For other people its "don't wave your flag so much", but for them its about their right to feel OK about who they are - which is absolutely vital for their self esteem and ability to function. You mention above that you don't apologize for bringing up conservative viewpoints. Well, you chose to adopt conservative ideals. Imagine if there was some attribute of yours, like red hair, or dark skin, that caused you to face systematic discrimination in society. That, for example, your red hair meant you were legally not allowed to get married, that you were denied a host of basic rights, and that you had to worry about people with anti-redhead views harassing you, discriminating against you, and sometimes even physically attacking you. Worse, imagine that the police, and government in general, also held anti-redhead views and you couldn't turn to them for help, because they had a large part in oppressing you for who you are. That is what life has felt like for a long time to many gay people. Being forced to live in the shadows, deny who they are, and face systemic injustice because of the way they are, something they did not choose, cannot change, and which doesn't harm anyone else anyway. You might think that such a level of discrimination against people with red hair, or different colored skin, is crazy, that no society would ever do this - but this is exactly how gay people, and many straight people, feel about the way that we've historically treated gay people. The message that it is OK to be gay isn't just a liberal feel-good thing. Treating gay people with respect is something they need to be able to function well in society. We treated people of color terribly for many years, and we are still paying the price for that now. It is the same with gay people - discrimination against a whole class of people based on such an attribute causes severe distress and problems in the people of that class, as well as very serious problems for society at large. A message of acceptance is absolutely required as something that should be broadcast far and wide as a social standard. It is hard to argue that we live in a respectful or just society if we discriminate against people with red hair, dark skin, or who are gay.
    • If anything, that at least some people consider kids to be something you have to carefully work at and plan for for years, NOT just the happy accident or result of a month's trying that many straight people consider them to be.

    I fail to see how all of these aren't positive, useful messages.
    Gay parents being visible doesn't convey "anything goes".
    Rather, gay parents being visible conveys "you are lucky enough to live in a society where it is possible for a person to achieve their dreams through hard work and dedication".
    Actually, I would go further. I would argue it conveys: "you are lucky enough to live in a society where we try to treat people with respect, even if they are different to us".

    These are beneficial, some would say vitally important, messages.

  4. #54

    Default

    Why do individuals feel that their sexual preference be represented in any facet of life? Is there no validation to a purpose of one's own life without common acceptance? Do we all need reciprocation and understanding to fulfill ourselves? Is there a real need to exploit our sexual preferences to obtain equality?

    Once again mainstream media has done it's best to divide the masses in every corner it can reach.

    We have been led to believe that acceptance without notion is the proper way to subject ourselves to social correction: we must behave in a way that fulfills some diplomatic mold. We seemingly have been divided to fill a power while being convinced that recognizing any opposition provides a terrace on which to fight from. The great illusion is to fight an enemy while there is none. We have been duped into fighting against everything that opposes our beliefs.

    Humankind has been duped into a surreal realm of non-awareness.

    This link can provide an insight into how fragile the human mind is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

    It's a long documentation but for the fortuitous, a must see.

    For those who do not wish to view the video: it is a telling and profound look into the social issued and context that we have been subjected to even before we were cognizant of our own desires, beliefs, or personal battles. Edward Bernays has had a superlative hand in modern propaganda. Edward is the 'father' of manipulation and his discoveries of the human condition and human weakness has been used since and is still being integrated into media stream to this day (cigarette anyone?).

    To be blind to it is to be ignorant all the same.

    We can exist forever with cultures but will fail miserably when we are forced to adopt ideals. Such ideals have no place in the commonality of law; they are separate of intrinsic human rights.

    ..."Sheep! Sheep! Calling all sheep! Place your eyes and ears here, we have all you should hear or see. Place none of your attention to your own thoughts or provisions, but rather be distracted so that we may control you. Your attention is on the television. Your attention is on the screen. You have a purpose to lash out and feed the fire.

    Your own admission belongs to those who benefit and profit from it. Never mind that we live in gated communities beyond your reach. Never mind the idea of aristocracy since we have provided you with the idea of compassion and understanding. Pay no attention to the absurd ideals written into the Declaration of Independence because they will only confuse you. It is only good to be subject to, or adhere to, the idea of 'fairness'. It is a complicated subject but once you grasp it's reasoning, you will understand ours'"

    We are all born free but learn to chain ourselves to our own environment.

  5. #55

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Being obese has serious health consequences. It is largely caused by poor diets (caused by the fact healthy food is more expensive than junk food) and lack of exercise (caused by the fact that our society is designed around the idea of cars, so most people don't do much walking).
    The first problem can be fixed with a high tax on junk food (including all kinds of soda) and a subsidy for healthy food. If people want to eat junk food, they still can, but the government can and should encourage people, not force, but encourage, people to make the choices which are best for themselves and everyone else in the long run, which is what a tax/subsidy arrangement would do.

    The second problem can be fixed by encouraging the building of incredibly dense cities with huge residential buildings, such that everyone is able to live within walking distance of their workplace, reducing the pollution from cars and encouraging people to get daily exercise by walking to work. This would require abolishing all sorts of conflicting zoning laws, but would ultimately bring down rents, make people healthier, and reduce pollution.
    You're validating my premise about 'personal responsibility' vs. 'can't help myself' by rehashing liberal talking points that taxes and government can fix things, while people can't. Population density in cities is plenty high, as are taxes (like Chicago's infamous penny per ounce soda tax), yet there are still plenty of obese people. Michelle Obama's school lunches in urban areas? <shrug>. It still comes down to what individual people choose to put in their individual mouths.



    Put simply, having one parent who loves you and tries to raise you as best they can, is better than having two parents who are constantly fighting because they dislike each other. The former is tough but you have some support. The latter is just a permanently nasty environment to be in.
    Patchwork fixes after the fact, when looked at short term, might seem better. That somebody has cobbled together a workable fix after putting themselves in a bad situation is admirable, but not a reason to celebrate and promote bad choices and bad situations.



    Well done, but I think you're crediting the wrong thing.
    Last I heard, the energy you actively expend (by exercise) is less than 20% of the total energy your body spends. The vast, vast majority of it is expended by processes which you have little-to-no influence over, things like digestion, breathing, thinking, maintaining your temperature, etc.

    In short: many many people have made a great deal of money peddling exercise machines, routines, diets, and special food to help people lose weight. Almost all of these are scams. There is really only one way to lose weight: consume fewer calories than you naturally burn. This simply means eating fewer calories worth of food. If you consume less than you burn, your body will start losing pounds. It is that simple.

    I mention this because I frequently see people crediting their weight to exercise, or some special diet, and as far as I know, this is all hogwash - it is a dangerous myth that really hurts people trying to control their weight.
    *******This may be a little off-topic, but I consider this clarification an important public service. As important as you consider "gay rights". It also demonstrates something about free will. Free will does not necessarily mean easy********

    That may be true for YOU, it may be true for a mythical "average person", but its far from a universal truth. That's the danger of 'studies' and 'averages'. If you consider an hour of walking or putzing around at the gym "exercise", then don't expect it to have any effect on your weight.

    On the other hand, lets do some arithmetic:

    In a coma, your housekeeping energy requirements probably run around 900-1200 calories. Throw in consciousness (your brain consumes a very significant amount of energy) and 'just moving around', you're up to around 2000-2500 for the average adult. I could find a link if you really wanted, but those are so generic and accepted, that any search you do will come up with those numbers or something close. Another generally accepted number.... a pound of fat contains the energy equivalent of 3500 calories.

    Let's use today as an example. I have to ride my bike to Junior's house to let his dog out. I refuse to drive somewhere to exercise a dog as a matter of principle. Planned round trip 40 miles. It being a reasonably cool day, Juno will probably take me for a 5 mile walk (I let her pick the route, within reason). Dogs are OCD, so routes are predictable, and being a bit OCD myself, I've measured her usual routes with my bike odometer. So 5x100 walking = 500 calories, 40x35 (estimated 35 calories per mile)=1400 calories cycling, 1900 total. That's significant in relation to possible weight loss as well as daily maintenance requirements. That's a typical day for me. Tomorrow will look much the same. Bad weather? Bike trainer and weights in the basement, or YMCA.

    When I was younger and competing regularly, a typical summer week might look like: 8-10 miles in the pool + 200-250 bike miles + 50 run miles. That's around 2500 tp 3000 calories a day over and above "just walking around". Not everyone can do that? Perhaps not...but most can, if they want it bad enough. You can't just get up this morning and decide to do a 5 hour workout, it takes a couple years to work up to it, but it doesn't require any special innate talent, just will and effort.

    Time consuming? We make time for things that are important to us, and it doesn't take as much time as the average couch potato might think. Once you've worked up to that level of training volume, averaging 20 miles/hour on a bike or 6 minute miles running is more typical than not. A lot of my mileage then came from bike commuting and lunch time runs. Pool miles mostly before the sun or anybody else woke up. Creative time management, and habits. Once you're in the habit of rolling out of bed at 5, it just happens.

    ******sermon over*****

    Not everyone wants to control weight this way, but it IS very possible if you understand a little about the numbers and physiology of exercise. We agree that it's still the in vs. out ratio that matters. Controlling the intake is more difficult for me than upping my fuel use when necessary. Some people prefer to lock the fridge.



    I don't think you understood my example.
    The lesbian couple I know went to a LOT OF EFFORT to have kids.
    They did not have leftover kids from a previous straight relationship. They did not somehow end up with kids.
    They worked for years to arrange everything so they could have kids despite being a lesbian couple. To find a donor, both get pregnant, deliver, have childcare, and be able to raise a family.
    Frankly, YES. If everyone in society put as much thought and care into family planning and thinking out their futures beforehand, society would be better off.
    No argument about the specific example, or the conclusion that everyone should think things through beforehand. BUT (and you knew there would be a but...)

    Now that you've made all the arguments and broken down all the legal barriers, and the media in this Brave New World are constantly whispering in everyone's ear 'don't sweat it, it's all good, if it feels good, do it...' where does it stop? Or does it....

    Where's the harm in doing the family dog if she doesn't mind? Maybe I should take it upon myself to demonstrate proper and enjoyable sex techniques to my own children, where's the harm in that? So what if the neighborhood kids experiment with each other once I've taught them? Why only a mommy and a daddy, or two mommies, or two daddies, why not three daddies, a mommy, a goat and a sex coach?

    "Oh, no" you say. "It stops at my favored kink (orientation, attraction, whatever....), no further" OK, if you think so, but that's not how it plays out once you've set the legal precedent. Pandora's Box, primrose path, etc.



    Don't conflate gay parents with single parents, or people stuck with kids against their will from previous relationships.
    There are lots of gay parents, I suspect the clear majority, who only have kids because they've gone to a LOT OF EFFORT to pursue their dream of having kids. Whether that be by adoption, donor/surrogacy, or whatnot.
    Difficult here.... and I'll try not to be disrespectful. There are no gay parents, strictly speaking, or one has to admit that there is more choice in the matter than LGBT doctrine would like us to believe. Artificial means notwithstanding.



    Straight couples can end up with kids from a single lucky/unlucky accident. For gay couples, it takes serious work. Should we promote and laud the fact that some people think it through and work towards it as a goal for years? YES. Frankly I'd like to see more straight couples put that much thought into having kids before they have them.
    Nope. It's happened once in recorded history. If you're an atheist, you even deny that instance.

    As for the rest, yes, everyone should take it seriously. FWIW, kids are not trophies, or notches on the gunbelt. I have similar concerns regarding some career moms. Who ends up being the parent? A nanny? Angelic, our own day care practitioner? Public schools?

    I'll leave the rest alone except to re-iterate that tolerance, love, acceptance doesn't mean accepting that anything goes or pretending that a pliers is a wrench. At the risk of being flamed for mentioning religion, Catholic doctrine has always been about love and forgiveness, recognizing that nobody does everything right 100% of the time. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Yet, they haven't lowered the bar to say that sin does not exist, or that anything goes. Despite the hate for Christianity I see daily here and elsewhere, most other Christian denominations are the same.

  6. #56

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Moo
    I don't think you understood my example.
    The lesbian couple I know went to a LOT OF EFFORT to have kids.
    They did not have leftover kids from a previous straight relationship. They did not somehow end up with kids.
    They worked for years to arrange everything so they could have kids despite being a lesbian couple. To find a donor, both get pregnant, deliver, have childcare, and be able to raise a family.
    Frankly, YES. If everyone in society put as much thought and care into family planning and thinking out their futures beforehand, society would be better off.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx
    No argument about the specific example, or the conclusion that everyone should think things through beforehand. BUT (and you knew there would be a but...)

    Now that you've made all the arguments and broken down all the legal barriers, and the media in this Brave New World are constantly whispering in everyone's ear 'don't sweat it, it's all good, if it feels good, do it...' where does it stop? Or does it....

    Where's the harm in doing the family dog if she doesn't mind? Maybe I should take it upon myself to demonstrate proper and enjoyable sex techniques to my own children, where's the harm in that? So what if the neighborhood kids experiment with each other once I've taught them? Why only a mommy and a daddy, or two mommies, or two daddies, why not three daddies, a mommy, a goat and a sex coach?

    "Oh, no" you say. "It stops at my favored kink (orientation, attraction, whatever....), no further" OK, if you think so, but that's not how it plays out once you've set the legal precedent. Pandora's Box, primrose path, etc.
    I love this argument. I'm ok with Moo's suggestion that society would be better off if everyone put more thought into it, but no one knows how to accomplish that. Maxx's response is completely rational but doesn't provide any solution.

    Free speech has morphed into free expression. We are free to do just about anything except have sex with children, murder people, or overtly steal things. We are free to cry and whine about people with different interests having the same freedom to express themselves as we do. Everybody thinks there should be lines drawn limiting behavior but no one knows how to do that so they simply toss the mess into the laps of our lawmakers who have the same problem we have in figuring out where to draw the lines.

    One solution would be to have a dictator take control and make the decisions we are incapable of making for ourselves, but this would mean the end of democracy for us. Who would want that?

    The upside of a dictatorship is that we would be free of the obligation of figuring things out for ourselves. Should gay marriage be legal? Ask the dictator. Should diaper lovers be imprisoned or executed? Ask the dictator. Should abortion be legal? Well, you know who to ask.

    None of the three branches of the U.S. government is the absolute ruling authority so, in the absence of a dictator, who is the ruling authority?

  7. #57

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    You're validating my premise about 'personal responsibility' vs. 'can't help myself' by rehashing liberal talking points that taxes and government can fix things, while people can't.
    In some cases it does take governmental intervention to resolve problems. Yes, it's preferable to have individuals take responsibility for themselves and resolve what problems they can: I challenge you to, as a person, to end all assault in your local town. Or, you know, does it make more sense to fund a public organization dedicated to doing that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Population density in cities is plenty high, as are taxes (like Chicago's infamous penny per ounce soda tax), yet there are still plenty of obese people. Michelle Obama's school lunches in urban areas? <shrug>. It still comes down to what individual people choose to put in their individual mouths.
    In an ideal world, their options would include healthy food. Too often the practicable options are: not eat, eat junk food, eat four fewer meals this week to afford healthy food.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Patchwork fixes after the fact, when looked at short term, might seem better. That somebody has cobbled together a workable fix after putting themselves in a bad situation is admirable, but not a reason to celebrate and promote bad choices and bad situations.
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here. My best guess is you're convinced that marriage or even children automagically make all relationships healthy and stable. Which belief is rankest bovine manure.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    No argument about . . . the conclusion that everyone should think things through beforehand. BUT (and you knew there would be a but...)

    Now that you've made all the arguments and broken down all the legal barriers, and the media in this Brave New World are constantly whispering in everyone's ear 'don't sweat it, it's all good, if it feels good, do it...' where does it stop? Or does it....

    Where's the harm in doing the family dog if she doesn't mind? Maybe I should take it upon myself to demonstrate proper and enjoyable sex techniques to my own children, where's the harm in that? So what if the neighborhood kids experiment with each other once I've taught them? Why only a mommy and a daddy, or two mommies, or two daddies, why not three daddies, a mommy, a goat and a sex coach?

    "Oh, no" you say. "It stops at my favored kink (orientation, attraction, whatever....), no further" OK, if you think so, but that's not how it plays out once you've set the legal precedent. Pandora's Box, primrose path, etc.
    You're right, let's work this all the way to the end. Today, eradicate homosexuals. Tomorrow, let's remove Islam from the universe because some adherents are using bombs. Day after, let's go ahead and kill all the Catholics for overpopulating the world. Then let's kill off all the Jews: after all, Jesus was a Jewish carpenter there has to be something inimical there . . . .

    On less sarcastic note, you're being very narrow-minded about what constitutes harm. Show me a sapient dog, then we can discuss your first example.I'd argue that proper sex techniques includes consent, prophylactics against disease and unwanted pregnancy, and an awareness of what will and will not cause harm to one's partner. As for your last "extreme" example: it really does take a village to raise a child - the more caretakers and providers available to offspring the better their chances of reaching adulthood.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Difficult here.... and I'll try not to be disrespectful. There are no gay parents strictly speaking . . .
    Then what is the term for an adult(s) who have taken on the burdens and responsibilities of providing for, guiding, educating, and otherwise caring for a child?


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    . . . or one has to admit that there is more choice in the matter than LGBT doctrine would like us to believe. Artificial means notwithstanding.
    Pray tell, what it that the "Gay Agenda" has to say on this issue. Be as explicit as possible, please.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Straight couples can end up with kids from a single lucky/unlucky accident. For gay couples, it takes serious work. Should we promote and laud the fact that some people think it through and work towards it as a goal for years? YES. Frankly I'd like to see more straight couples put that much thought into having kids before they have them.
    Nope. It's happened once in recorded history. If you're an atheist, you even deny that instance.
    This statement betrays an utterly reprehensible lack of awareness of the world around you. If this was true, why then are numerous children placed up for adoption every day? Why are there neglected and abandoned children? If accidental pregnancy is all but impossible, why are there unwanted children? Face it, as much as it offends your narrow world view, pregnancy is not solely the result of an intentional and deliberate series of planned actions and events.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    As for the rest, yes, everyone should take it seriously. FWIW, kids are not trophies, or notches on the gunbelt. I have similar concerns regarding some career moms. Who ends up being the parent? A nanny? Angelic, our own day care practitioner? Public schools?
    Why does the primary parent have to be female? All your arguments apply equally to career men (or were you utterly unaware of the raging sexism inherent in your statement?).


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I'll leave the rest alone except to re-iterate that tolerance, love, acceptance doesn't mean accepting that anything goes or pretending that a pliers is a wrench. At the risk of being flamed for mentioning religion, Catholic doctrine has always been about love and forgiveness, recognizing that nobody does everything right 100% of the time.
    Except that Catholic Dogma explicitly states the Pope is infallible (i.e., cannot make mistakes and therefore is right 100% of the time).


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Love the sinner, hate the sin. Yet, they haven't lowered the bar to say that sin does not exist, or that anything goes. Despite the hate for Christianity I see daily here and elsewhere, most other Christian denominations are the same.
    That "hate" isn't for Christianity - it's for the individuals who are utterly intolerant of someone living in a different manner. It's for the bigots who harass and assault people for adhering to a different religion or philosophy.

    You speak of tolerance and acceptance. I call you hypocrite: your "tolerance" is freedom from abuse, persecution, attack if and only if I live precisely like you. Your
    "acceptance" is the accepting that your way of life is the one, true, and only way.
    Your brought it up, so, try this on for size: " . . . eight words the Rede fulfill, an it harm none do as thou will."

  8. #58

    Default

    My problem with the "Anything goes" argument is that it completely ignores the fact that same-sex couples only want the same same thing that every heterosexual couple already has, nothing more, nothing less. With the high divorce rate, incest, and domestic violence occurring in heterosexual marriages, they should be glad so many gay couples want to enter into the tradition without trepidation. We can't screw it up any more than what the general population has already done with it.

  9. #59

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    I love this argument. I'm ok with Moo's suggestion that society would be better off if everyone put more thought into it, but no one knows how to accomplish that. Maxx's response is completely rational but doesn't provide any solution.
    Well said.

    No, I don't have a solution, other than saying it is up to the individual to do the right thing, controlling the things he can control to the best of his ability, and using his free speech as we are now to persuade others toward a righteous (and reasonable) path. Getting government involved is something of a last resort. Power corrupts, and once you have them involved in something, it's next impossible to get them out.

  10. #60

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Well said.

    No, I don't have a solution, other than saying it is up to the individual to do the right thing, controlling the things he can control to the best of his ability, and using his free speech as we are now to persuade others toward a righteous (and reasonable) path. Getting government involved is something of a last resort. Power corrupts, and once you have them involved in something, it's next impossible to get them out.
    Unfortunately, it has always been the imbalance of power between the heterosexual population and the LGBT communities that has necessitated the need for government intervention. Without government involvement in LGBT rights there would be no protection from discrimination in the areas of employmemt, services and housing. Without government involvement, many businesses would still be refusing to serve gays and lesbians, and landlords would deny them accommodation. Same-sex couples did not have the same legal rights as married couples, for example, being denied the right to make decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner, or not eligible to be a family member in the partner's insurance plan. They continue to face unfair or discriminatory practices around adoption. Government has a responsibility to intervene when the private sector has proven itself incapable or unwilling to address discriminatory and homophobic practices.

    On the other hand, I don't have faith in any politician that is willing to throw a marginalized group under the bus for political gain. I have great sympathy for the transgender population in the US continuing to battle for acceptance, while getting pummelled by conservative fundamemtalist politicians who pass nonsensical anti-transgender bathroom laws, and a president who bans them from the military to change the channel on his own problems with an FBI investigation into his campaign connections with Russia.

    This is why we also have the courts, to ensure that decisions are fair, protective of minority rights and free of political opportunists.

Similar Threads

  1. My moms personality ( a theory)
    By Angelic in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20-Mar-2017, 09:24
  2. I am dreading my moms funeral
    By Angelic in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2016, 13:44
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13-Feb-2015, 00:08
  4. AB and moms question
    By Tupsu in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-Sep-2010, 07:22
  5. moved out of my moms
    By baby_mike in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14-Nov-2009, 19:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.