The Shit-Stirring Thread.

[Tailsteak]

There has been entirely too little forum traffic for my liking, especially here in the Serious Business board. Thus, I am creating the shit-stirring thread.

This is a thread where you can post your opinions on abortion, war, torture, prostitution, the economy, religion, homosexuality, and any other divisive topic you may care to talk about. I'll start:

Abortion - All the crap about feminism or religion just muddies the waters. The abortion controversy is about one question and one question only: how we define a human being. Answering this question is important for other reasons: as medical science advances, we are only going to see more and more cases that blur the lines of personhood - brains in varying states of disrepair, bodies with transplanted or artificial brain tissue, humans with augmented genes, animals with "uplifted" brains.... to say nothing of AI. Nailing down a concrete definition of personhood would only help.

War - I do believe that war is occasionally justifiable, but it should only ever be used as a last (and I do mean last) resort, and only if the potential lives lost from inaction outnumber the lives lost from action. I believe that the American war in Iraq may have achieved positive outcomes, but the initial justification for going into it was transparently insufficient. I sure as hell believe that Obama should not have been given a pre-emptive Nobel Peace prize for not being George W Bush, and, given his behavior after receiving the thing, I'd retract it.

I believe that my nation is too often bullied into military action by the States, and I believe that America unfortunately defines itself through its military, and has become dependant on the economic activity generated by war. America has lost the hope of being the greatest nation of the world morally, economically, environmentally, or in terms of innovation, and can only hold onto the self-appointed title of "Greatest Nation in the World" by defining itself through its grotesquely over-inflated military. It's rather like a teenage girl cutting herself - it may provide emotional release, but it's ultimately self-destructive. The recent cutbacks to NASA, in particular, are depressing.

I believe that there are certain actions that are morally preferable to war that we tend to ignore. The assassination of Osama bin Laden (let's call a spade a spade here - that was an assassination), for example, was morally preferable to war with Pakistan. I would be totally okay with a world that contained more assassinations of political figures in lieu of traditional military action.

Torture - I do believe torture is morally justifiable - the Christian bible contains no injunction specifically against causing discomfort or pain, and the rule of doing unto others necessarily cannot apply when lives are balanced against each other. I believe torture is ethically justifiable - there are (thankfully, few) circumstances in which deliberate causing of pain to obtain information can outweigh the consequences of not doing so. That being said...

I believe torture is a fantastically inefficient means of obtaining accurate information. People are just too resilient, and, in the absence of a magical brain-reading lie-detector, one can never be 100% certain of information obtained thusly. I believe that torture is, necessarily, slow. And, while it may be morally and ethically justifiable, any human being who can effectively and efficiently torture another human being is a dangerous psychopath devoid of mammalian empathy, and should not be allowed to do so. Regardless of the proverbial "ticking bomb" scenario, I am perfectly fine with torture being illegal in all circumstances. It's not necessarily always wrong, but it's always bad.

(While I'm at it - yes, waterboarding is torture. Yes, holding people in "stress positions" is torture. Yes, forcibly keeping someone awake for days at a time is torture. And anything involving dogs that aren't trained to sniff out banned substances is probably torture as well. If you have someone restrained and you're asking them questions, you have no good reason for a dog to be in the room.)

Prostitution - I believe that while prostitution is morally indefensible in nearly any religion, as long as reasonable precautions are taken by all parties involved, it is ethically fine. Furthermore, I believe we should always legislate via ethics, not morality, so while I would never partake of prostitution myself, I do believe it should be legal.

I believe the current state of prostitution, however, is a nightmarish wasteland of human misery, and needs an immediate overhaul. (We've already had a fairly comprehensive thread on this matter.) Sex workers are in an absolutely ridiculous amount of danger, they are preyed upon by pimps and managers that keep them in conditions indistinguishable from slavery, and their status very often prevents them from going to the police if they are abused or threatened. I am, thusly, in favour of prostitution being illegal, but I believe that more should be done to crack down on the parties that abuse sex workers, not the sex workers themselves.

The Economy - I believe that as technology increases, the value of unskilled human manual labour will only decrease, and the skill and training necessary to perform skilled manual or mental labour will increase. As we move towards The Future (i.e., a floating point about two hundred years away), the only jobs that will be available will fall into three categories: specialized work that requires decades of training, creative work that requires a spark of innovation, and pity jobs.

Here in the present, I believe that the main thing the government can do to boost the economy is to create jobs directly. Yes, that will necessarily raise taxes, but the benefit derived from a) one more person buying goods and paying taxes, b) one more person no longer depending on welfare or some other handout, and c) the emotional benefit of having a job and being a productive member of society will outweigh that burden. Every person who is capable of work and who wants to work and cannot find work represents a failure of our leaders.

And I don't believe that the jobless are merely lazy bums who just need to get off the couch and scrape together a resumé. Political pundits will speak of people - adult human beings - who are capable of lying around and lazily doing nothing but collecting cheques from the taxpayer... I have yet to meet someone between jobs who had that mindset. Being without a real job is a hell.

Religion - I count myself as a Christian because I believe in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the truth of Scripture, and the necessity of salvation. I do not enjoy being a Christian. It's a horrible religion, and I wish it weren't true.

But I believe it is, so here we are.

We Christians believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is going to Hell forever. Think about that. That's more than fifty percent of the population of the planet, going to eternal torment, not because they were necessarily any worse than their fellow man, but just for betting on the wrong horse. That is shitty.

(This is, incidentally, the theme of my book, so GO BUY A COPY.)

Homosexuality - It may not surprise you that I believe homosexuality to not be ethically wrong. It may surprise you that I don't believe it to be necessarily morally wrong, either.

Yes, there's a section in Leviticus that forbids "lying with a man as one lies with a woman". But hey, that's the same book that forbids eating shrimp and wearing poly-cotton blend, so we non-Jewish Christians go by the New Testament instead - and Jesus was more or less mute on the matter.

Now, sex outside of marriage is still morally wrong, so the sooner we all recognize gay marriage the better.

I do have an another opinion on homosexuality that may earn me some flak from the other side - I don't believe people are "born with" an orientation. The human mind is a flexible thing, and there are plenty of examples of people's sexual tastes changing over time - I'd wager that most of us aren't attracted to the same things now that we were when we first entered puberty. That being said, it's difficult to change one's sexual tastes intentionally, and it's far easier to develop a taste than to lose it.

.....

Okay, so that's my bit. Everyone else, let's see some controversial opinions!

[typhon]

I have certainly no intention to answer every single thing here, so I'm gonna limit myself to stuff that doesn't rely only on opinion, but has an element of objectivity to it.

Abortion - All the crap about feminism or religion just muddies the waters. The abortion controversy is about one question and one question only: how we define a human being.

That's not true, there's a second question that comes after : In what circumstances is killing another person acceptable ? Never ? Always ? Something in between ?

As for the definition of personhood and a human being, there is no clear-cut definition, and I'm making here the bold prediction that there never will be a satisfying one.
It's a sliding scale, perhaps even several sliding scales, between inert matter and thinking person. The Christian viewpoint, as I understand it, is that anything that has a direct chance to become a human being, including the gametes, must never be destroyed. There are good reasons not to go that far, but then, you have to put a limit somewhere.

I believe that there are certain actions that are morally preferable to war that we tend to ignore. The assassination of Osama bin Laden (let's call a spade a spade here - that was an assassination), for example, was morally preferable to war with Pakistan. I would be totally okay with a world that contained more assassinations of political figures in lieu of traditional military action.

This assumes that there won't be a war with Pakistan. Never mind that their case is strong : what kind of state would let a foreign power conduct military operations without being precisely informed on the consequences ? What if Pakistan wanted to chase down some terrorist hiding in the USA ? Would the US not retaliate ?
Political assassinations are more often than not the sparks that create wars, such as the first world war. Political assassinations plus violations of sovereignty are even worse.

I do have an another opinion on homosexuality that may earn me some flak from the other side - I don't believe people are "born with" an orientation. The human mind is a flexible thing, and there are plenty of examples of people's sexual tastes changing over time - I'd wager that most of us aren't attracted to the same things now that we were when we first entered puberty. That being said, it's difficult to change one's sexual tastes intentionally, and it's far easier to develop a taste than to lose it.

Now, there is an unspoken assumption here : that things we're not "born with" can be changed.
It's not necessarily the case. We're born without knowing how to talk, yet once you've learned one native language, it will remain your native language. Unless there's a brutal environmental change during your early childhood, your native language won't change, and you will never be exactly as fluent in another language.

Human sexuality is a very complex thing, and there are reasons to believe that sexual tastes are influenced by genetic factors, prenatal factors, and environmental factors during one's life.

Religion - I count myself as a Christian because I believe in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the truth of Scripture, and the necessity of salvation. I do not enjoy being a Christian. It's a horrible religion, and I wish it weren't true.
But I believe it is, so here we are.
That's more than fifty percent of the population of the planet, going to eternal torment, not because they were necessarily any worse than their fellow man, but just for betting on the wrong horse. That is shitty.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(Apocalypse of John, 7)

If you believe the New Testament is true, it's much more than fifty percent of the planet.
But « what matters an eternity of damnation to who has found in one second the infinity of bliss ? »

I'll write my own list of controversial opinions some other time.

Typhon

[Tropylium]

Abortion - All the crap about feminism or religion just muddies the waters. The abortion controversy is about one question and one question only: how we define a human being.

That's not true, there's a second question that comes after : In what circumstances is killing another person acceptable ? Never ? Always ? Something in between ?

And third: to what extent can a person be required to support another?

I'd argue for a sliding scale, or at least something more terraced than the current system. The distance from "not a living thing" to "human being" is sufficiently big that it makes no sense to handle it as a single jump.
(This is part of a fairly general issue I have with law: there are no "micropunishments". This is understandable, as our judiciary systems are much too rigid for a sentence of eg. a hour of jail-time or a $10 fee to be an efficient use of resources. To an extent, we do have the police, who have the authority to dispense punishments of this scale, but their field of operation is limited. I suppose you could say I'm arguing for "asshole police" here…)

Another related issue BTW is the psychological effects of pregnancy to the mother. I've seen it argued that a mother killing her newborn baby during its first day of life can under no possible conditions be considered murder (ie. manslaughter, at worst).

Political assassinations are more often than not the sparks that create wars, such as the first world war. Political assassinations plus violations of sovereignty are even worse.

Since we're probably still in "stirring" mode, I'm going to take a cue from here and mention that I don't really have all that much respect for sovereignty. Does anyone seriously respect the North Korean government's right to do what it pleases to its citizens? Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc? Are our own civilized democratic governments really afraid that if the international community were to subject states like those to even a minute loss of sovereignty, any of their own power (and the inevitable smaller abuses of it…) would also immediately be in danger of being upstaged? Sounds like a patent slippery slope argument here.

Religion - I count myself as a Christian because I believe in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the truth of Scripture, and the necessity of salvation. I do not enjoy being a Christian. It's a horrible religion, and I wish it weren't true.
But I believe it is, so here we are.

Very interesting. Considering that the human mind has a tendency to rationalize away things it does not like, I assume you have found some arguments for supporting your beliefs that you find fairly convincing?

[W]hile it may be morally and ethically justifiable, any human being who can effectively and efficiently torture another human being is a dangerous psychopath devoid of mammalian empathy, and should not be allowed to do so. Regardless of the proverbial "ticking bomb" scenario, I am perfectly fine with torture being illegal in all circumstances. It's not necessarily always wrong, but it's always bad.

Would you argue for allowing mechanized torture? One or more psychopath designers for the apparatus might be needed, but their work could then be subjected to safety checks by other, more emphatic personnel. I imagine allowing a psychopath to design one machine also does far less to feed their disorder, than allowing them to personally torture multiple victims.

That said, an argument I find far superior for disallowing torture is that it has a ridiculously high chance of yielding false positivs. Someone who's being grill'd for a piece of information they just do not have is sooner or later going to crack and start telling their torturers what they want to hear, to confess crimes they've not committed, etc.

The Economy - I believe that as technology increases, the value of unskilled human manual labour will only decrease, and the skill and training necessary to perform skilled manual or mental labour will increase. As we move towards The Future (i.e., a floating point about two hundred years away), the only jobs that will be available will fall into three categories: specialized work that requires decades of training, creative work that requires a spark of innovation, and pity jobs.

It sounds fairly probable that this direction will continue in the near future. Extrapolating indeterminably seems less secure; blue-collar jobs themselves have not disappeared anywhere, cheap energy and rising living standards just means machines make for cheaper workforce than men (or even animals: cf. transportation). With oil running out, coal being a no-no for environmental reasons, and fusion power having remained for approximately 50 years in the future for decades, this may well change within our lifetimes.

BTW, I gather the main reason the estimates for fusion have been failing is a lack of interest in reseach, since other forms of energy do remain cheap. Hopefully this will change in the future… or if not for fusion, at least for various kinds of renewable energy.

Here in the present, I believe that the main thing the government can do to boost the economy is to create jobs directly. Yes, that will necessarily raise taxes, but the benefit derived from a) one more person buying goods and paying taxes, b) one more person no longer depending on welfare or some other handout, and c) the emotional benefit of having a job and being a productive member of society will outweigh that burden. Every person who is capable of work and who wants to work and cannot find work represents a failure of our leaders.

So basically you are arguing that if a part of the populacy just does not have what it takes to contribute to the society, we should 1) still take care of them, but 2) make up some useless or ineffectiv work for them to demonstrate, I dunno, commitment?

There also seems to be an assumption that we can easily identify whether someone is capable of artistic or similar contributions, or indeed, that there exist some who would not contribute anything even in such a way, if given the chance.

I believe we should always legislate via ethics, not morality

Now, sex outside of marriage is still morally wrong, so the sooner we all recognize gay marriage the better.

I spy a contradiction here…

New topic: animal rights.
I have for the latest few years increasingly been drifting towards vegetarianism. I still eat fish & byproducts, and will even eat meat if there is no alternativ at an event, but I do find it just about impossible to justify as ethical the treatment of animals in industrialized food production. (The huge carbon footprint doesn't help either.) Quite probably this will be what future generations will be finding ours' abhorrent blind-spot practice, quite akin to racism, misogyny etc. in the past…

[typhon]

Animals have no rights. You're welcome to try and eat rocks, but the fact is that the only reason people think eating vegetables is somehow worse than eating meat is because we empathise more with moving creatures similar to ourselves, mammals especially. There is no moral difference between eating a carrot and eating a chicken. Animals will have rights when they claim them.

Since we're probably still in "stirring" mode, I'm going to take a cue from here and mention that I don't really have all that much respect for sovereignty. Does anyone seriously respect the North Korean government's right to do what it pleases to its citizens? Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc?
Are our own civilized democratic governments really afraid that if the international community were to subject states like those to even a minute loss of sovereignty, any of their own power (and the inevitable smaller abuses of it…) would also immediately be in danger of being upstaged? Sounds like a patent slippery slope argument here. with the difference that the bully will not necessarily meet an even bigger bully, whereas a state that violate sovereignty will find

As a matter of fact, diplomats, among whom are very clever folks, believe such a thing.
There is no such thing as the international community. It is an abstraction made up of several very different countries. The last thing any independent country wants is to have a foreign power dictate what it can or cannot do, as it effectively means it's no longer independent.
Disrespecting the sovereignty of a country is behaving like a bully stealing someone's lunch by force. The USA, most powerful country on this planet, may believe that they can get away with that kind of behaviour, but they ought to expect being hated, and hate is what caused 9/11.

The problem is, I think, that the US have a bit of a messiah complex since D-Day.
Ever since 1944, they've been trying to be the good guy fighting the axis of evil and freeing the poor occupied countries, even though things were already a bit more complicated back then. But this was a very peculiar situation, and it's unlikely it will ever happen again. Those countries living under a dictator's boot would rather endure the dictatorship than a war. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but he did a few good things for his country. Certainly, many people in Irak (apart from the Kurds), lived better back when he was still in power.

As China emerges as the new superpower, the last thing any western democracy should do is put that core tenet of international diplomacy in question.

Typhon

[Sorcyress]

It's rather like a teenage girl cutting herself - it may provide emotional release, but it's ultimately self-destructive. The recent cutbacks to NASA, in particular, are depressing.

As controversial opinions go, I don't believe in the demonization of self-harm (nor of suicide, though that gets more complex). I believe that if people really do find that the best way to get themselves out of a bad mindspace is to physically damage themself, then that's the coping mechanism they should use. I sure as hell would prefer people to self-harm rather than other-harm.

I do also believe that people who are going to use this coping mechanism should do so responsibly. Know how to properly sterilize your cutting supplies, dispose of sharps properly, don't leave blood where other people might encounter it, etc.

That's not true, there's a second question that comes after : In what circumstances is killing another person acceptable ? Never ? Always ? Something in between ?

That's an excellent point, and I tend to be of the sociopathic opinion that I would rather the death of someone who has not gotten any sort of chance at life, then the destruction of someone who's already had some time to learn and grow. Babies are expensive --literally and emotionally-- and so being forced to raise one wastes time that someone could otherwise be spending as a productive member of society.

Also, if you're not emotionally able to raise a child, you so shouldn't be having one.

On a related note, I believe in comprehensive sex-education for all children. We're talking safer sex, prevention (condoms, IUDs, pills, patches, abstinence, rhythm, morning-after, abortion, adoption...), STIs (Including things like HSV1, which is ridiculously common --like, well over fifty percent of the population common-- and destigmitization), homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, trans* stuff, genderfuckery, the basic ideas behind fetishes, kinks, and BDSM, consent, consent, motherfucking enthusiastic consent, masturbation, monoamory and polyamory and open relationships and all the grey inbetween, COMMUNICATION, how not to be a douchebag when you want to sleep with someone, and the fact that whether you want to sleep with everyone or no-one, and regardless of how you want to do it, there's nothing wrong with you.

I want every child on the planet to have gotten as awesome an explanation on sexuality as I did, basically.

New topic: animal rights.
I have for the latest few years increasingly been drifting towards vegetarianism. I still eat fish & byproducts, and will even eat meat if there is no alternativ at an event, but I do find it just about impossible to justify as ethical the treatment of animals in industrialized food production. (The huge carbon footprint doesn't help either.) Quite probably this will be what future generations will be finding ours' abhorrent blind-spot practice, quite akin to racism, misogyny etc. in the past…

Hahaha, misogyny in the past. You're so funny.

I am an unabashed carnivore (though I admit a slight reluctance to eat "smarter" animals --I hear the octopus is rather clever some days) but I have no qualms towards eating delicious vegetarian or vegan food, nor against working to accommodate their dietary needs. Heck, part of me enjoys the challenge of designing a menu to match my dinner party's tastes (The house I'm currently living in has a kosher vegetarian who's allergic to uncooked fruit, and a regular gentleman caller who can't eat any nightshade --including tomatos, potatos, and peppers. We've been going through crepes like they're going out of style.)

That being said, I get frustrated at people who more passionately believe in animal rights over human rights. Do I think animals should suffer? No, not especially. Do I think their plight is more upsetting than that of child workers being paid pennies in third world countries? Hell no! And I think that PETA should be destroyed for thinking it's at all acceptable to regularly use sexism and racism to make their case. Seriously, fuck PETA. I am willing to watch them burn.

Other controversial opinions I have...hum...

Asexuality exists and should be respected.
Sex with someone unconscious is rape, and should be called such.
America keeping the legal limit for alcohol at 21 is ridiculous, and hasn't helped.
Exposure to sexuality is less damaging to children than exposure to violence.

Oh, I totally believe in the rights of consenting, legal, sex-workers. I disagree with Tailsteak --I don't think it should be made MORE illegal, quite the opposite. I think decriminalizing and legalizing more varieties of sex work, up to and including prostitution, would help legitimize the field. Most importantly, if you could get your rocks off via an unionized prostitute, with a strict condom policy and regular STI checks, it would make it less appealing (and probably more difficult) to find an uncontrolled and unconsenting prostitute.

(I really believe in destigmitization of sex workers. It would be lovely if it could be socially acceptable to be a stripper, or cam-girl, or pro-dom/sub, or prostitute, and not have to worry about people disrespecting you, or the potential of getting fired from future "more legitimate" jobs.)

Also, I think Lady Gaga produces fun and danceable music, and entertaining (albeit violent) music videos.

~Sor

[doctor100]

I feel, like, obligated to reply to this thread. Really.
TK said something I thought was interesting. First.

My mother had two abortions before she had me, my brother and my sister; if she had been arrested for that, then i would not exist; therefor I am bias. I prefer not to create a situation where I would not be born.

War; wars are justified, though I would be very leery of anyone who readily claimed several examples in the current world. Generally i would say it is only justified if the end result can clearly be for the greater moral conduct (and by extention/also less suffering) of the area of the world that is effected. Again, such results should be reasonably clear. therefor i do believe in morally justified wars, but not retaliatory justified wars.

Torture, i am a proponent of chemical based persuasion, though I think it probably needs combination with other techniques. i'm not a proponent of torture, because I am not a proponent of things that don't work. Intimidation is another story.

the Christian bible contains no injunction specifically against causing discomfort or pain,

i realized this when i started thinking about the religious implications of super heroes. I think it is basically true, though you would have difficulty convincing most Christians of it I think. Best support for no violence is 'anger is bad', but if not done in anger?

Prostitution; eh, i think that like drugs, it should be regulated and sin-taxed. it's a more effective means of control.

I think self-harm goes under prostitution; i think that 'noninterferance' is wrong, but that counseling would be a preferable method. It does effect society beyond the individual, though the slope is slippery.

Economy; innovation baby innovation.

Religion; can you say that without religion we would not have war? I don't even think that hatred of homosexuals is justified by religion. But if it be philosophy, ex: democracy, politics, ex: territory, money etc, excuses, justifications will arise. i think that religion does not prevent that, but is a framework that slowly moves us away from such cultures. Perhaps working through a series fo paradigm shifts of cultural revolutions, but slowly slides us to the better.

Homosexuality; I am for gay marriage, for roughly the same reason that TK says. Promiscuity is a greater sin than homosexuality (sin with/against one man or many?). Also liviticus doesn't say, "don't have sex with men" it says "don't have sex with men like you do with women, because it is unnatural" A highly legal document, every word counts. applied to a strictly homosexual man, it does not apply.

Homosexuality deserves another paragraph; some people are born with psychotic tendencies, some are born compulsive liars, some are born kleptomaniacs. I do believe that some are born into sin while others choose it. I also think honestly that hostility would decrease if straight men were not threatened by gay men---by that, I mean it literally; they don't "feel" threatened, they are threatened. If I say "I don't want this" yet a man continues to go to some extremes to attain it, that is a 'threat'-ask an anti-rape advocate.

animal cruelty: ah, I can't agree with the reasoning presented; other better means are available. providing money to the humane competitors helps reduce the warehousing of chickens and pigs far more than eating vegetables does. and vegetable mass producers also have a huge carbon footprint.

Sex education; ah, the part where I believe everyone has it wrong. I mean everyone. Sex should be thought not as biological consequences, but as emotional one. That is education I would whole-heartedly support, and without it, don't support sex ed. That last sentence is controversial, but let me clarify; it's not the condoms that are bad, or the birth control, or the knowledge of STDs, it's just not nearly enough. I don't support food stamps that only give ten dollars a month either.

Also, consent needs fundamental cultural change. if you have been drinking and i have sex with you, I just committed rape, I don't commit rape.

Age 21/alchohol. The constitution forbids it, which is why they provided it as an incentive with the highway funds. Unfortunately for it's supporters, providing incentives for something is still regulation of that something.

As for strippers; the way I see it, if you are doing 'something good' (which everyone should), then you would probably be willing to do that something for your family; from construction to doctors to tv repair, to pilot, to janitorial, to stockbroker. If you aren't, why not? If I can take the liberty of providing your answer to this question; because sexual feeling between two such would not be a good thing . . . but would it be for any given stranger?

It is no worse than anything else you normally wouldn't do for family, but if you make a list, what are the character of those professions? are they 'good'? Fun, exciting, even pleasurable, are not the same as: with positive benefits, constructive to society, without negative consequence.

That said, don't get me wrong, three of the closest women to me are in various shades of sex industry, or have been. Thinking something isn't "good" is by no means the same as condemning it. When Christians learn that they will have one less thing they need to study- but that will take a paradigm shift, or a cultural change, and I think gay marriage would help make that shift-along with wars where reconstruction is part of the mission.

[Phantom]

Abortion: I personally believe that sexual relations should occur between a man and a woman who intend to spend the rest of their lives together and who are, even if it is not planned, prepared to care for a child. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether she wishes to have a child, but that decision is made when she engages in sexual activity. The only dilemma I see is that of rape cases. I cannot honestly say I believe a woman who never made such a choice should be forced to have (and subsequently raise) a child, but it becomes a question of whether a child should die to maintain her freedom. I think if someone is choosing abortion because they believe they cannot care for the child, it makes far less sense to kill the child than to haave it and then have it cared for by someone more capable.

War: There are situations where the alternative to war is death. Such situations most probably occur far more rarely than wars themselves. I don't claim to know enough about history or law to adopt a strong opinion one way or the other on any recent events. My reaction to the recent assassination was biased for the simple reason that my sympathies will always go toward the individual begging for their life.

Torture: I believe that torture should not be demonized the way modern culture has done. However, I think more in the context of criminal rehabilitation than acquiring information. If you can justify killing someone for their actions, you can justify removing an appendage and/or causing extreme pain and discomfort both physical and psychological in the hopes of reforming them. I'm willing to bet a great many people, including most of those on death row, will agree that torture is preferable to killing someone. (There is also the issue of execution. I find it absolutely bizarre that you can take someone's life, but you cannot cause them pain while doing so. I personally imagine the use of an injection would be more psychologically torturous than a shooting squad or a guillotine, though I hopefully will never find out for certain. (I think hanging is just a bit more gruesome.) But frankly, it's a moot point if the person you are putting through it will be dead within the hour.)

I do believe that corporal punishment used on children is a part of the same concept, though I don't think it can be called "torture" in that case. A child who is intentionally disobedient warrants a painful but ultimately harmless slap to bring them out of hysterics or as discipline, where someone commiting armed robbery might justify something in the range of torture. Pain is the most immediate way to deter someone from a behavior. Imprisoning them for life without causing pain is a truly horrible form of torture, but does little to reform them, I think. Indefinite imprisonment with no chance of release is in some ways almost as bad as a death sentence- especially since it amounts to "Rot in this complex until you die." (I'm not saying either the death penalty or life imprisonment are not sometimes justified, but there are certainly better options.)

In the context of war I don't see any dilemma. If your job is to kill, you should not be able to say you have compunctions about causing people pain or distress.

Prostitution: I find this disgusting. Not only performing sexual acts for their own sake, but going so far as to do so for profit. I believe promiscuity is morally wrong in the first place, and the fact that people will pay for it disgusts me to no end. That said, as Tailsteak said, those involved are often victims as much as they are guilty. A drug-abuser certainly never should have gotten into it in the first place, but I think that if you can get them out of it, they've suffered more punishment than they should have already. This case is similar. It is the pimps and those who actually seek out these services who should be focused on criminally, just as drug dealers are with cases of drug abuse.

However I don't believe prostitution as a whole is outlawed- it is simply very narrowly defined. The difference between pornography and legally defined prostitution is selling footage of the event.

The Economy: I personally feel I should skip this issue. I'm simply don't feel I understand it well enough to say anything one way or the other.

Religion: I am a Baptist Christian, and I am not ashamed to say that in any context. When discussing religion I tend to say "theological perspective" instead of "religion" because everybody invariably has one, even if it is essentially "I don't know," and therefore I feel helps lessen the credibility of those who put their faith in The Big Bang treating faith in the Bible as a disease of some sort. I will say in response to Tailsteak that I don't believe people are sentenced to an eternity of suffering based on which of a thousand or so theological viewpoints they were raised with: Even those who are sentenced to Hell will not recieve final judgement before they know the truth beyond a doubt. That said, I do find some of the twists of popular culture somewhat disturbing... Lucifer rules over Hell the way a dangerous animal rules over the cage in which it is kept.

Homosexuality: I do believe that Homosexuality is morally wrong. However, it is a 'victimless crime' in the sense that I don't think a gay marriage is harming anyone who doesn't wish to be involved. I am more than willing to completely ignore it entirely, up until one line is crossed: I have been actively attacked for my religion by people preaching for gay rights. I will respect the beliefs of others so long as they respect mine, but I will argue my beliefs if they insist upon it.

Animal Cruelty: I am both amused and disturbed by the fact that if I ignore my religious beliefs, I can see no real reason humans should consider themselves to have more of a right to life than an animal. Or plant. Or virus. Of course, nobody is expected to be a 'hero' and starve to death so a pig may live. Or be a 'hero' by refusing treatment so those intestinal parasites may thrive in their natural habitat. (Though I will bet good money that somebody somewhere is refusing treatment for that reason. I have heard questionable stories of people keeping such parasites as bizarre "pets".) That said, it is not acceptable to cause anything to spend its life in torment by no fault of its own, for the sake of profit and economy. (Often much lower quality food from the animal, I might add.) I believe that when you can justify killing someone, you can justify torture, but that obviously does not carry over to this context. If you are responsible for how something spends its life, you have a responsibility to meet at least a basic standard of health and happiness for the animal. I am not a vegetarian, though I believe that we don't actually need meat (though you have to plan out your diet a bit more carefully) to thrive. I do try to limit the amount of meat I consume, but that has more to do with my health than my moral ideals. Ideally, nothing would die for our meals, but a man, a woman, and a snake did a good job of ruining that.

Sex Education: I believe that a parent must educate their child on what sexuality is late enough that they are psychologically prepared to understand the emotional weight of any choices in such context, but early enough they have taught them about it that they are not already seeking it. (I would generally place this age at around 9-13 years of age, but there are so many factors involves that only the parent of a child may say- and that often makes on pity the child.) I do not believe it should be handled by schools, and certainly should not teach them how to engage in promiscuous behavior and partially avoid the consequences.

Consent: is not a tricky concept. A person must actively choose to engage in sexual activity- whether or not they want it is not the question- and they must be mentally (children, teenagers, those who are even slightly intoxicated, and the mentally infirm are not mentally prepared for such a decision) and emotionally (as in, they're not letting you do something to them because they're depressed or in shock to a point of refusing to care) prepared to make such a decision. They must not be acting under any sort of duress- if you force someone to have sex with you, regardless of the indirectness or subtlety of your methods, you are commiting rape. If someone claims to be confused on the concept, there is something very wrong.


I'd like to thank Tailsteak for this. It feels very good to be able to state my opinions on these points. I would much rather be in a state of "I don't want to talk about these things unless we have to- let's go find some mindless entertainment" than "I desperately want to say something about this".

[typhon]

As for strippers; the way I see it, if you are doing 'something good' (which everyone should), then you would probably be willing to do that something for your family; from construction to doctors to tv repair, to pilot, to janitorial, to stockbroker. If you aren't, why not? If I can take the liberty of providing your answer to this question; because sexual feeling between two such would not be a good thing . . . but would it be for any given stranger?

What a preposterously stupid argument. Does that mean that soldiers should be willing to kill their families ? Does that mean that managers should order their family around ?
Does that mean astronauts should take their family into space ?

It is no worse than anything else you normally wouldn't do for family, but if you make a list, what are the character of those professions? are they 'good'? Fun, exciting, even pleasurable, are not the same as: with positive benefits, constructive to society, without negative consequence.

« Society » is an abstraction. Basically, it means a bunch of other people. Now, because we're social animals and we need to help each other if we want to perpetuate our lifestyles, we have to do stuff to maintain society. That's what taxes are for. But it is needlessly coercitive to say that a job has to have positive benefits toward anyone, has to be constructive to society. After all, if there's something western civilisation stands for, it's individual freedom. People should be allowed to do what they like, as long as it doesn't attack the physical integrity of others, or robs them of their property. And if they somehow manage to get paid to do what they like, well it's good for them.

Typhon

[doctor100]

Good, I'm glad someone replied to that, even it is the guy that can't admit when he is wrong, and doesn't understand when he is subjective, and lives in some kind of fantasy world where real things don't exist.

After all, if there's something western civilisation stands for, it's individual freedom. People should be allowed to do what they like, as long as it doesn't attack the physical integrity of others, or robs them of their property. And if they somehow manage to get paid to do what they like, well it's good for them.

This is all highly subjective, it could be said that what western society stands for is to help each other more than other societies do . . .which we do, on the other hand we have little hesitation to take away choice.

But not that that is highly relevant; and now that i have the insult out of my system (btw you started it, if you reread your post, can you find where you insulted me? hint: it's in the first sentence you wrote).

if 'good' they should be willing to do it for family. you provided several examples: soldiers, managers, astronauts. Soldiers should be willing to fight for their family. Managers should be willing to "manage" family,this particular one is fuzzy because not all managers are 'good' ones, but yes they should be willing to treat family similar to how they treat subordinates. Astronauts should be willing to explore space for the family. The way you interpreted the statement has a fireman forcing his family to run into a burning building rather than pulling his family from one; or a police officer putting his family in jail rather than making his family safer.

i didn't say "do it to the family" i said "do it for the family" and by that I will add the keveat: without consideration of the money motivation.

Seriously, I've never discussed that particular line of thought (it's fairly new); so I am glad its challenged to see how it develops the idea.

[doctor100]

I do believe that corporal punishment used on children is a part of the same concept, though I don't think it can be called "torture" in that case. A child who is intentionally disobedient warrants a painful but ultimately harmless slap to bring them out of hysterics or as discipline, where someone commiting armed robbery might justify something in the range of torture.

Oh, Corporal punishment! the way I see consequences such as punishment are learned; i believe in criminal corporal punishment for those who were raised with corporal punishment. Of course, I also don't generally think children should be raised with corporal punishment. Frequency and severity does have factors here, it isn't an extreme statement.

====

Consent: is not a tricky concept. A person must actively choose to engage in sexual activity- whether or not they want it is not the question- and they must be mentally (children, teenagers, those who are even slightly intoxicated, and the mentally infirm are not mentally prepared for such a decision) and emotionally (as in, they're not letting you do something to them because they're depressed or in shock to a point of refusing to care) prepared to make such a decision. They must not be acting under any sort of duress- if you force someone to have sex with you, regardless of the indirectness or subtlety of your methods, you are commiting rape. If someone claims to be confused on the concept, there is something very wrong.

ah, I can't agree about consent. you just denied sex to the "mentally infirm" including the chronically depressed, simpletons, and even those with long term low self esteem. Also what constitutes "actively choose"? outside of marriage and similar structured relationships (ex: max's polyamory is a structured relationship), generally sexual relationships are not a single time active choice-you eliminated pursuit.

there are other issues, such as child-bearing contingencies, that start to muddy the issue beyond simply consent. and granted many of these issues and problems evaporate in a marriage society. But I think we can all be honest and say that our society is not a marriage society-everyone here is western right?