Journal Jeremiah Cornelius's Journal: "Historically, this is ridiculous" 32
"Normally, when you challenge the conventional wisdom - that the current economic and political system is the only possible one - the first reaction you are likely to get is a demand for a detailed architectural blueprint of how an alternative system would work, down to the nature of its financial instruments, energy supplies, and policies of sewer maintenance. Next, you are likely to be asked for a detailed program of how this system will be brought into existence. Historically, this is ridiculous."
revolutions (Score:2)
I hope the legacy of the next revolution is not a further empowerment of the Right, because further down that road it starts to get pretty grim. There be monsters.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the legacy of the next revolution is not a further empowerment of the Right, because further down that road it starts to get pretty grim. There be monsters.
I hope so, too. Unfortunately i don't see any reason to expect that hope to be close to the reality. The American political Right has such a strangehold on the discussion - and the American political Left (what little their is of it) is so utterly squelched and excluded - that it is really hard to look somewhere and see hope for a non-conservative future.
And indeed the monsters are new world fascism. However since the Right has managed to change what most people think fascism to mean, they will brin
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me? In a world where white heterosexual men are just blancos to be oppressed, being against gay marriage means you're a bigot, and to be for actually having a middle class and conservation of the environment that makes a middle class possible means you're a communist, exactly how is classic conservativism NOT drowned out by various liberal and libertine voices?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me?
No, I am not.
white heterosexual men are just blancos to be oppressed
In the US, much more than 90% of the total wealth is held by white people, and that wealth predominantly is held by men. How exactly do you see them being "oppressed"?
being against gay marriage means you're a bigot
Can you describe a non-bigoted way that one can support the suppression of rights? We learned a long time ago that separate but equal ends up being either but not both.
and to be for actually having a middle class and conservation of the environment that makes a middle class possible means you're a communist
That is another sign of the magnitude of influence that the Right has in the US. No other country associates the political middle with communism - or has suc
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, much more than 90% of the total wealth is held by white people, and that wealth predominantly is held by men. How exactly do you see them being "oppressed"?
In the US, more than 90% of the total wealth is held by just *six families*. The majority of white men are either middle class or less.
Can you describe a non-bigoted way that one can support the suppression of rights?
Yep, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege, like driving. Civil marriage is designed to
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, much more than 90% of the total wealth is held by white people, and that wealth predominantly is held by men. How exactly do you see them being "oppressed"?
In the US, more than 90% of the total wealth is held by just *six families*. The majority of white men are either middle class or less.
The white men who are middle class or less are being oppressed not by non-whites but rather by other whites. The white men with power in this country have set up a system to prevent others from gaining economic mobility.
Can you describe a non-bigoted way that one can support the suppression of rights?
Yep, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege, like driving
You can call it a privilege if you want, but it is a privilege that brings rights with it. And if you are not extending those rights to others because you do not recognize their marriage as valid, then you are suppressing the rights of those people.
Since homosexuals, by definition, neither create stable heterosexual homes and their sexual unions are, by definition, infertile, they should be limited in that privilege
Homosexuals can raise children. They
Re: (Score:2)
The white men who are middle class or less are being oppressed not by non-whites but rather by other whites. The white men with power in this country have set up a system to prevent others from gaining economic mobility.
Only partially. Haven't you heard the song "Accidental Racist" yet?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/09/is-accidental-racist-accidentally-racist-brad-paisley-and-ll-cool-js-track-makes-waves/ [time.com]
You can call it a privilege if you want
No, I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
You can call it a privilege if you want
No, I'm not the one redefining words to fit my politics here, you are.
You redefined several terms as you continued on... I am asking you why you feel the need to change the dictionary to meet your political will.
Homosexuals can raise children.
The evidence for that is missing- every study so far has been condemned as being statistically insignificant. Mainly because homosexuals themselves are statistically insignificant.
If homosexuals are statistically insignificant as you claim, then why are you so interested in what they do in the bedroom, and why are you interested in denying them the rights that go with marriage?
They can create loving households.
Also no. As a rule, homosexuality is about power, not love, and is a form of rape.
I don't know where you got that "rule" from, or who wrote it. There are many, many, many, many homosexuals who do not obey your "rule".
Furthermore, if homosexual l
Re: (Score:2)
You redefined several terms as you continued on.
These are the original meanings. It is the liberals who change meanings. You can even see the root words in my meanings.
If homosexuals are statistically insignificant as you claim, then why are you so interested in what they do in the bedroom, and why are you interested in denying them the rights that go with marriage?
There are no "rights that go with marriage". There are certain benefits that are specifically for the continuation of the species, a
Re: (Score:2)
You redefined several terms as you continued on.
These are the original meanings. It is the liberals who change meanings. You can even see the root words in my meanings.
I notice that you can't bother to try to defend any of the specific words that you have redefined in this discussion, I presume that is because you acknowledge such actions to be indefensible.
There are no "rights that go with marriage".
BULLSHIT THERE ARE NONE. Spouses have the right to inheritance. Spouses have the right to make decisions for each other when one is unable to make decisions for themselves. Married couples are entitled to privileged rates of taxation and other benefits as well
How about NOT HAVING BROKEN FAMILIES TO BEGIN WITH? Or is that too hard for your poor little brain?
Pull your head out of your ass, dumbshit. Nothing you
Re: (Score:1)
BTW.
Not everything is about arse-fucking and foetus-flushing.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that you can't bother to try to defend any of the specific words that you have redefined in this discussion, I presume that is because you acknowledge such actions to be indefensible.
Rather, I contend that I am using the original definition of the words, as can be seen by the consistency in usage of the root words. The defense is that my use, rather than the modern use, is consistent- and that the modern use is not. Isn't it clear that libertarians believe in the superiority of liberty,
Re: (Score:2)
. Spouses have the right to inheritance.
Which can be mimiced with a simple will.
Which would not be granted the same status as heterosexual spousal inheritance in many regards, and in many regards has also been denied by various institutions.
In other words, it is not equal to what is given to heterosexual married couples. It is a right denied.
Spouses have the right to make decisions for each other when one is unable to make decisions for themselves.
Which can be done for friends with power of attorney.
Which has been denied in many jurisdictions. This is another right extended automatically to heterosexual married couples, and denied to homosexual couples.
Married couples are entitled to privileged rates of taxation and other benefits as well
Those are privileges for biological parentage
Those privileged rates are extended regardless of whether the married couple has kids
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Sometimes it's about wallet-stealing. Fiscal Libertines are as bad as Sexual Libertines, in their own way.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would not be granted the same status as heterosexual spousal inheritance in many regards, and in many regards has also been denied by various institutions.
What institution denies documented wills?
In other words, it is not equal to what is given to heterosexual married couples. It is a right denied.
Why should it be equal when homosexuality isn't equal?
Which has been denied in many jurisdictions. This is another right extended automatically to heterosexu
Re: (Score:2)
Which would not be granted the same status as heterosexual spousal inheritance in many regards, and in many regards has also been denied by various institutions.
What institution denies documented wills?
I am sorry you struggle so greatly to understand that statement. I don't know how to phrase it so that you can understand it, although it is not clear you have any interest in ever understanding it anyways.
In other words, it is not equal to what is given to heterosexual married couples. It is a right denied.
Why should it be equal when homosexuality isn't equal?
How is LOVE unequal? Just because you don't like it does not mean it is in any way inferior.
Which has been denied in many jurisdictions. This is another right extended automatically to heterosexual married couples, and denied to homosexual couples.
What jurisdiction routinely denies power of attorney?
It is denied by bigots like you who view the relationships as not being worthy of being granted such powers.
Those privileged rates are extended regardless of whether the married couple has kids or not.
They shouldn't be. They should be denied to infertile couples. DINKs are worse than homosexuals.
Wow, you are showing even more hatred now. So what would you want to do with couples who found out
Re: (Score:2)
How is LOVE unequal?
The purpose of love is to have children. Homosexuals can't have children. The inequality is inherent and unavoidable.
It is denied by bigots like you who view the relationships as not being worthy of being granted such powers.
Has nothing to do with worthyness. Has everything to do with the proper interests of government. Government has NO business granting or recognizing non-procreative relationships- whether homosexual or heterosexual- at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How is LOVE unequal?
The purpose of love is to have children
You are simply wrong on that. The purpose of love is companionship. If children come from that, great. Furthermore there are plenty of relationships that produce children without producing love, which makes your statement even more nonsensical.
Homosexuals can't have children. The inequality is inherent and unavoidable.
Wrong. You assigned it inequality because you don't like it.
There are plenty of loving relationships that do not produce children, for any number of reasons. Your statement directly states that infertile couples cannot love each other, which is bigoted at t
Re: (Score:2)
I have no need to recognize somebody else's "Loving relationship", and you have no right to make me pay for it. I sure as heck don't want to regulate "loving relationships" in any way shape or form.
There is no government punishment for cohabitation currently, and none needed. Why insert the government where it does not belong? There is no need left for civil marriage- do away with it completely, I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no need to recognize somebody else's "Loving relationship"
As a nation we are forced to recognize heterosexual loving relationships. You have repeatedly stated that you view homosexual relationships to not be loving, which is an exceptionally bigoted and discriminatory attitude to take.
I sure as heck don't want to regulate "loving relationships" in any way shape or form.
So are you lying about that now, or were you lying about it earlier? Earlier you said that you felt homosexual sex is criminal, and that couples who cannot create children should be punished.
There is no government punishment for cohabitation currently, and none needed
There are government rewards for specific types of cohabitation but not for others.
Why insert the government where it does not belong?
I wa
Re: (Score:2)
"As a nation we are forced to recognize heterosexual loving relationships."
No, we're not. We don't recognize prostitution, or polygamy, or child marriage, or incest.
" You have repeatedly stated that you view homosexual relationships to not be loving, which is an exceptionally bigoted and discriminatory attitude to take."
It is an OBJECTIVE take, as opposed to emotion-based nonsense.
"There are government rewards for specific types of cohabitation but not for others."
Yes. And I maintain, only procreative coh
Re: (Score:2)
As a nation we are forced to recognize heterosexual loving relationships.
No, we're not.
Yes, we are. Just because you feel it is otherwise does not make it so. Your feelings do not become reality just because you want them to.
We don't recognize prostitution
Because prostitution is not a loving relationship. Prostitution is a financial transaction.
or polygamy
Because polygamy is a relationship between more than two people.
or child marriage
Because child marriage is not a loving relationship, and for that matter is o
Re: (Score:2)
Because prostitution is not a loving relationship. Prostitution is a financial transaction.
And given the complaints I've seen from the gay community, so is homosexuality.
Because polygamy is a relationship between more than two people.
Bigot, you're bigoted against love between more than two people.
Because child marriage is not a loving relationship, and for that matter is often a form of prostitution.
Only because of your bigotry.
Excep
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describe a non-bigoted way that one can support the suppression of rights?
If everyone has a right to be married, why am I single? I mean, if it's my RIGHT... I can no more find a suitable woman than a gay man can. And guess what? Gays have always had the right to marry. My lesbian friend was married and had three kids with her husband. How were her rights suppressed?
You only have the privilege of being married if you find someone. We all have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describe a non-bigoted way that one can support the suppression of rights?
If everyone has a right to be married, why am I single?
I was referring to the rights that are extended to married people - specifically in regards to rights they have regarding their spouse - that are effectively guaranteed to married heterosexual couples but often denied to homosexual couples. MH42 in particular is supporting not only the continued suppression of those rights with regards to homosexual couples, but also additional punishments against them for being homosexual.
Since I have homosexual friends, how can I possibly be bigoted against them?
Do you support continuing the denial of rights that are extended to married hetero
Re: (Score:2)
Do you support continuing the denial of rights that are extended to married heterosexual couples?
I support equal rights. People shouldn't have extra "rights" just because they're married. If anyone is denied a right, it isn't a right, it's a privilege. Couples are already privileged by having fewer expenses, why should they be granted additional privileges?
Re: (Score:2)
I support equal rights. People shouldn't have extra "rights" just because they're married. If anyone is denied a right, it isn't a right, it's a privilege. Couples are already privileged by having fewer expenses, why should they be granted additional privileges?
The rights or privileges I am particularly looking at here go beyond strictly financial. While the tax benefit is significant, I am also looking at the ability of one partner to visit or speak for the other in a crisis situation. Homosexual couples have been denied these rights on numerous occasions because the states where they reside do not extend them to non-heterosexual couples. The rights to inheritance and child custody are similar - and similarly denied to homosexual couples - as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I am also looking at the ability of one partner to visit or speak for the other in a crisis situation.
Power of Attorney takes care of that.
The rights to inheritance and child custody are similar
For inheritance there are wills. As to child custody, I don't see where marital status or sexual orientation applies at all; they don't give the ex custody just because they remarried and you didn't, and they shouldn't grant or deny custody on the basis of sexual orientation.
I'd like to see governments out of the ma
Re: (Score:2)
I am also looking at the ability of one partner to visit or speak for the other in a crisis situation.
Power of Attorney takes care of that.
The problem though is that the ability to do that is effectively guaranteed to married heterosexual couples. If you are not (recognized as) married and your partner is in grave conditions, you might not be able to find the PoA and deliver it to the right person on time - and for that matter there have been couples with PoA arrangements who have found that their PoA was not recognized as valid when it came time to make a decision.
The rights to inheritance and child custody are similar
For inheritance there are wills
There are two problems here, again in comparison to inheritance for a marrie
Re: (Score:1)
I originally had a much longer thing to post, but fuck it. It boils down to:
"What's the point of the revolution without general copulation?"
We want our rights and we don't care how
We want our revolution now [lyricsplayground.com]...
Maybe we won't know we're winning until we've won (Score:2)
Graeber made an interesting point, about how power groups are most concerned with denying the possibility of alternatives, to the point of undermining themselves. He gives the example of a demonstration outside a building where there were to be a series of IMF meetings. The demonstrators were met with an overwhelming police presence, and he went home feeling depressed, feeling the demonstration had been futile. But later, he learned that most of the IMF meetings had been shut down by security -- which is to
Really? (Score:2)
On the other, we have an ecological crisis, a galloping process of climate change that is threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. The two might seem unrelated. But ultimately they are the same. What is debt, after all, but the promise of future productivity? Saying that global debt levels keep rising is simply another way of saying that, as a collectivity, human beings are promising each other to produce an even greater volume of goods and services in the future than they are creating now. But even current levels are clearly unsustainable. They are precisely what’s destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace.
In the immortal words of the Instapundit: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis [google.com]"