How is she using a human life to be sexually promiscuous? — Michael

Because she kills the fetus, and thus refuses the natural consequence that emerged out of her being sexually promiscuous.

It's not as if sexual promiscuity is a consequence of having an abortion or as if having an abortion makes sexual promiscuity easier. — Michael

It's not as easy to be promiscuous if you have a child. Many men would be put off by that for example.

She might never have had – nor ever have – an abortion and yet still be sexually promiscuous. — Michael

Sure. So?

I disagree with both of these exceptions. Abortion is not morally permissible in cases of rape of lack of family care. In the first case, the fetus is not to blame for the woman being raped, the rapist is. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist, which is wrong. In the second case, the care of the child becomes society's obligation. To abort the fetus simply because the family cannot provide for the child doesn't excuse the risk the couple took in having sexual relations. If they didn't want a child and knew they wouldn't be in a position to raise one, then they ought not to have engaged in such behavior. — Thorongil

Are you sure you disagree? I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case where it's used as an escape from the consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Whereas in the latter it screams to the Heavens for justice, in the former it's merely evil.

Now I agree with your point. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist. But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. Hence a necessary evil - both choices are evil. Hence why the state shouldn't make the choice.

Now you may be right about the family conditions exception. I was a bit reluctant to put that in my first post even. But I feel that given the predominance of left-wing culture, it's a good place to be relative to where we are today. But to attempt to argue the position further, I would say that for a married couple, sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union, and as a means of procreation. To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. But I do agree that they shouldn't be reckless about it and get abortion after abortion, quite obviously. Nor should they purposefully and consistently avoid procreation - there should be a sensible reasoning for that - such as they're not financially ready to have a child.

I wrote about this many times in the past, but mine is a version of natural law ethics - except that sex has a dual purpose, one spiritual (intimacy) and one physical (procreation), and the fulfilment of either one is generally a lawful use of the activity. Promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, etc. all would be unlawful according to that criteria.

Just as one human to another (as opposed to some ridiculous political crap), there is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's psychologically precarious to endorse such a thing. — Mongrel

What do you mean? By necessary evil I meant a situation where all the choices one can make, lead to evil/harm. Do you not think there are such situations?

And as for the religious right, their view involves something called "God centered." It means that everything in life should be approached with a sense of sacredness. — Mongrel

Yes I agree.

I'd advise that you not start with superficial stuff and work your way down to the basics. Start at the basics and come upward. That way you'll be more likely to get what's really cool, genuine, and meaningful about the right. I'm not very rightist, myself, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to human life. I don't like to see that smeared with shit. — Mongrel

Okay - I'm not really sure what you mean by this, so please clarify.

What do you mean by abortion being used to justify sexual promiscuity? Is she saying "I'm allowed to be sexually promiscuous because I can have an abortion?" — Michael

No - but she is using that as a crutch to help her be sexually promiscuous more easily. It's morally reprehensible to use another human's life - in this case the life of the fetus - for that purpose.

Here's the complete anti-abortion argument, including its presuppositions. Firstly, it's important to understand that abortion is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to sexual ethics. It's impossible to judge the position on abortion of many on the Right without understanding this. Abortion does not occur in a vacuum.

Abortion is a crime when it's used such that the life of the fetus is brought to an end because the woman has behaved in a sexually irresponsible manner. If the life of the fetus is brought to an end because (1) the woman was raped [based on the principle that one shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences of what was forced on them], or (2) the woman's life is endangered by giving birth [based on the fact that society shouldn't have a right to decide for an individual who risks losing their life], or (3) the family of the woman and her partner does not have the means necessary to care for the child [based on the understanding that in a relationship / marriage, the couple may inadvertently end up having a child despite their best attempts not to], then the act loses from its immorality and can quite possibly be regarded as a necessary evil.

But the point of contention is always that abortion ends up being used by women like Amy Schumer, who mock the loss of life, and use it as a tool to justify their sexual promiscuity. That's the problem, that's what's shameful, that a life is ended FOR THAT REASON. Look at that:
http://www.emandlo.com/amy-schumer-doesnt-feel-bad-about-your-abortion/

So it's the way abortion can be used to justify a different approach to being a woman that is the problem - it justifies selfishness, mockery of the responsibilities of being a mother, and allows the privilige or right to be used in a way that abuses and oppresses others - in this case the newly conceived, without giving any real benefits to the mother. It's not saving her life or dignity, but on the contrary, it's harming them - it's dehumanising her.

Same thing regarding the killing of animals. It's one thing to kill a lamb because you're hungry, and it's a different story to kill the lamb because you love hunting (for fun). While both killings are immoral, one of them screams to the Heavens for justice, and the other one is just a necessary evil.

If you were offered a lifetime income at your current income (plus cost of living increases) what would you actually do with your time? — Bitter Crank

Hmmm - I think I'd work same as before. I genuinely like working to help other people and seeing that what I do helps them. I just don't know what the hell else one can do with their time >:O If I was really rich, I'd start organising others to work in directions that I find to be good for my local community.

I don't like parties, etc. I think those events are a waste of time. So if you made me a billionaire BC, you wouldn't see me on a yacht with three or more ladies, I can guarantee that >:O

social anxiety — csalisbury

I found that regarding these things it's good to accept yourself as you are, don't try to be like others, or how others think it's good to be. Get your self-esteem out of things which are in accordance with your own personality. We all are different - some are naturally shy, some naturally don't like to meet new people, etc. I've been diagnosed with anxiety before. Nowadays I still feel anxious, but I just do things regardless - I'm no longer "upset" or "annoyed" that I feel anxious or trying to change. But I do things which are true to who I am and who I want to be. If I feel anxious about activity X, and that activity is something that society thinks is good for me, then fuck it. I don't do it. But if activity X is something that is in accordance with who I am and who I want to be, then I just force myself to do it. Basically for me, it's been about accepting anxiety as an eternal part of my life, and just getting on with it - living as if I don't feel it. I know because it's just my personality, I will always feel anxiety - but I ignore it. Probably if someone meets me, they wouldn't even know I have it, unless I tell them. I don't think it's about changing how you feel - just how you act, and react to events. In the end, anxiety is just an uncomfortable feeling. Personally I've learned that I can cope with feeling uncomfortable and act normally regardless of it. When you do a sport - which is very useful - it feels very uncomfortable to run, and push yourself, etc. But it's just about training that will, to keep going regardless.

IT (mostly database creation/management for small businesses) and back-end web development. But I'm a civil engineer by profession. I've been learning this by myself otherwise over the years.

It's really all about managing your emotions I found. Break big problems into small problems, tackle them one by one, and most importantly, don't get bored - or scared - haha... If there could be a man who could rule with an iron fist over all of their emotions, then that person could pretty much do anything, I'm becoming more and more sure about that. It's not lack of skills that's holding most back, it's lack of confidence and fear.

Honestly I think that work is work. I don't even ask if I like it. For me, we all need to work and help each other. Now I'm working much more than before probably, as I'm working for myself - but I'm also enjoying it more, and I've probably been learning more in the past 4-5 months than in the previous entire two years. So in the periods when I'm very busy I pretty much work around the clock. But you know I can't figure out what I'd do if I wasn't working you know... I'd read, I'd write, I'd meet and chat with a few people, write on here, pray etc. But work makes me happy - it's enjoyable seeing that other people find what you do valuable and it helps them.

The annoying part for me about having a job as such is that you have a boss. I hate that, I could never really stand it. And I always like taking leadership roles, and pushing my vision, so I've always had trouble "working in a team", which ends up being more politics than you know, doing the best thing.

But anyway - to reply to your comments in the Shoutbox:

Perhaps "Living their life" should, whatever that means, have priority. And I'm not sure that "work for work's sake" is worthwhile. — Bitter Crank

To be honest this isn't a very complicated question for me. If you look through history, most people today have lived and experienced SO MUCH MORE than pretty much anyone 100-200 years ago - and all this probably the time they're in their mid 20s. And yet they're still unhappy. They still want more. Perhaps they're even more unhappy.

I think we should keep things in perspective. There's not much that one can do on Earth to be happy. A few things. Do useful work for others. Be a member of your community. Read, write, and seek to understand and garner knowledge. Possibly start a family. And most importantly, don't get bored :P - learn to be patient. There's no much else to do on Earth. All those people infinitely seeking for the next thing, and the next thing - they'll never find what they're looking for.

I can tell you that I don't think I have ever met an atheist that was pro life (or mentioned they were) — shmik

I used to be an atheist that was pro-life. In fact, I was a conservative before I became religious, and I became religious because I was conservative, that was part of the path. For me, the reason why I side with the right is because I detest the arrogance, self-righteousness and pettiness of the left, and I love the Ancient Greek culture, which I see as an ideal. I have a feeling that real men and women used to live back then - men like Alexander, ready to conquer the world, with gigantic ambitions and passions. It seems to me that the left is reducing all of us to our common denominator, our animal nature - it's the outgrowth of democracy which seeks to make a level playing field for all. It's seeking to make more and more of us like Hollywood pop-culture. What used to take restraint and courage, the virtues, are now despised. Strength is despised.

I dislike the premissiveness of left-wing culture. Regarding abortion for example, I simply don't think (1) that a developing child, the fetus, should be killed because of the whims of the mother, and (2) I don't think that women should be free to do as they please with their bodies (and neither should men for that matter). We live in communities and we have responsibilities one towards another. This whole idea of "freedom" is barbaric. This used to be called "bondage to lust" by Spinoza and Aristotle. We should consider our behaviour in relation to others, not only to ourselves.

I find the left's obsession with the importance of sex petty and disgusting. What should be a tertiary concern in life becomes the purpose of it. Jokes are about sex, conversations are about sex, everything is about sex. I mean what the - man should not be a worshipper of pussy - I find that disgusting. The mere idea that one is to "have to do something" to have sex is ridiculous! Outrageous! Or the whole "if you're not having sex, you're not living" mantra of the left. What's with this whole building of self-esteem around sex? Are these people actually serious? A man's self esteem should revolve around sex? I mean, that, as Kierkegaard said, may be fit for a worm, but not for a being as great as man. There's a reason why I say the media and Hollywood are the professors of that pussy-grabbing Donald Trump - they, and their culture, created him.

If the Clintons are as rich as I've heard they are (with most of their wealth accumulated in the last 16 years) then they have done very well for themselves as well -- a few million
towhat?over200million
towhat?over200million
$ ??? is good money for book royalties, consulting fees, speaking tours, et al. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, that's the kind of money they should never have been allowed to make. Their "work" (speeches, ghostwritten books, "consulting", etc) has simply done very little, if anything, of value to merit earning that kind of money. I hate folks like that, who make money doing nothing - same feeling I have for Wall-streeters. I find that disgusting. But I've always respected someone who had a good ability to find opportunity and make money by providing something of value. It's just that I detest those who don't deserve the money.

So then why don't I like him? Because, for one thing, he isn't any better than a lot of rich guys, and compared to the other very rich guys who have made a run for the presidency, he lacks 3 things:

1. Experience in public service.
2. Gravitas
3. Intellectual depth

So for #3, he certainly isn't unique here. If still waters run deep... George Bush II was/is the very model of a shallow gulch, a drainage ditch, a dry arroyo. So was Ronald Reagan, IMHO. In politics, "shallow" is not a disqualifier.

For #2, a quality separate from depth and his CV, he isn't unique either. A number of presidents have gotten through a term or two on gaseous gravitas. But they aren't remembered as great, either.

For #1, he is kind of a stand out. Of course, President Eisenhower didn't have political experience either. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but I also don't like Trump for those reasons. However, I prefer Trump and his buffonery over seeing the self-righteous supporters of Crooked - especially the Media and Hollywood - maintain their hegemony over culture. I think that they are responsible for far more of our current social problems and ills than many of us are willing to believe. I think we are all defined in part by what we oppose most. Their Hollywood anti-intellectualism and pro-sensualism is my number one enemy.

He's succeeded in show business. No small deal, most people who try to succeed in show business fail. He's succeeded in business, apparently. Maybe some of his dealings were shady, but shady kind of comes with the territory of real estate; everybody wants to live on a shady street. As a "university" founder, he evidently left a great deal to be desired. I can't think of anything else he's done that was particularly distinguished.

As far as I know, Hillary has not tried show business or real estate. Being First Lady isn't something that Trump was ever eligible to be, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have much of her policy wonkiness. — Bitter Crank

He's succeeded in construction business - which is probably the most complicated business you can get into simply because the number of factors (and diversity of the people) that has to be managed is much greater than in most other businesses. He's built some amazing structures/places.

Yes it's true that he has also failed many times, but so what? He has tried to do Universities, airlines, etc. it would be utterly unbelievable if anyone could have managed. The important point is that his failures were never so great as to get him out of business. He's never truly failed. True failure is to have lost everything he had. And he wasn't the type of person to sit on his money - he was actively engaged in investing it. If most other people do that, they'd lose most of it. Most of the rich families - take Rockefellers - aren't actively engaged in manipulating their wealth. They give it to professionals, who administrate it for them such that it doesn't dwindle. They're not really taking "risks" the way Trump has been.

Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In other words, in TheWillow's world, if you disagree with feminazism, if you're against globalisation, if you're in any way friendly to whites - that's it, you shouldn't be allowed to live, you shouldn't be allowed to have an identity - because you're racist, sexist, misogynist, etc. . He wants to bulldozer the strength of peer pressure and social conformity in order to enforce his disgusting world view on the rest of us. He too has the phantasy of making an eternity - an end of history - out of his ideal.

The problem with the anti-Trump protests is that they're (1) disgusting and rude, (2) they create chaos, and they are not civil. They block roads, they fight, they insult, they go naked - that's fucking disgusting, they should all be arrested as far as I'm concerned. They should learn to protest in a civilised manner, not like beasts of the field. The Bernie Sanders "me me me" generation.

And who was Prez during most of the sexual revolution? Oh, yeah - Nixon. The country was SO far to the left. — Real Gone Cat

Maybe the country wasn't so far left politically, but culturally it certainly was.

Given the continued wage disparity and results of the recent election, we see how enlightened the US is regarding its attitude towards women. Look at your own post. You are so anti-woman that you can't stop yourself from writing "Crooked Hillary". — Real Gone Cat

Oh yeah, let's not be anti-woman, let's allow Amy Schumer to fuck around and do whatever she likes. Let's let her be a spoiled brat, that certainly is being "pro-woman". I don't call that a woman - that's a beast of the fields as far as I'm concerned, and the faster we get rid of folks like her (from the TV screen and the Media), the better the whole world will be. Give me a break - you say the country has never been on the left, and lo and behold you're peddling the same mantras "women are abused", etc. that the left peddles. Where are these places where women are taken and whipped or raped? Show them to me! In the past I could have taken you to a place where the slaves are abused and showed you - here are the slaves, they have no freedom and they're at the mercy of their masters. Take me to where these women are abused. Where is that? Nowhere. So give me a break with this feminazism. This is nothing short of a war on men. Some whores - like Amy Schumer - would like men to prostate before their vaginas, and be some disposable scum that they can throw away whenever they need to. I'm not going to bow to that - you can keep your head down and bow - you may do anything for pussy, but not me.

When abortion rights are repealed (I give it two years, tops) please come back and tell us all about the wonderful sexual revolution. (And if you think giving a woman the right to choose is wrong and should be repealed, then you know nothing about the sexual revolution.) — Real Gone Cat

Well I'm very glad those "murder" rights are repealed. As far as I'm aware it's not a good thing that we have women who use their bodies in irresponsible ways, and then resort to murdering the child in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's shameful - they should be ashamed of themselves, as should the men who had sex with them knowing that this would be the consequence.

Not like failing to pay - or file - taxes for at least 10 years. Or failing to pay your employees on a timely basis. Or going bankrupt numerous times (and using the US taxpayer to bail you out). — Real Gone Cat

Yes, as far as I'm aware, it's the government's job to make people pay taxes, and it's the businessman's job to avoid paying them if he can. He's a businessman because he can manage capital better than the government - or at least thinks he can. The problem is that the government is stupid - that's why men like Trump can get away with paying less in taxes. If the government was formed of able men, then no one could get away with not paying taxes.

Any bets on how long it takes Trump to significantly reduce taxes on the rich? Six months? — Real Gone Cat

You mean to reduce taxes on everyone? :P

Patience is one of the virtues :P

Ditto.

The thing is this whole idea of "middle class" politics is fucked up. We shouldn't measure well-being by the middle class. Rather it's about whether you can move upwards if you work for it and really want it. If you don't work for it, then you shouldn't move up. If you work but you don't use your brain, you shouldn't move up either.

Ha ha ha! Goodluck with that my friend. Let's all listen to TheWillow - oh you're a white heterosexual male? You fucking abuser, how dare you? How dare you apply to the same position as a black female lesbian? Listen to me - the left is going to hell with its identity politics. Look - what's so hard to get it? You think these white folk that you hate will accept to become the abused class so that other people supposedly will feel better? Did the blacks accept being the abused class? No!! That's why they went out into the streets and rebelled. The whites will do the same. It's very simple. You wanna keep driving your oppressive identity politics, it will only lead to more conflict.

Take another issue. The relationship between men and women. Do you think I, as a man, will ever accept my wife to go out naked protesting, or to pose naked because she wants to vote for Crooked, or any such shit? Of course not. Now you're going to start with "oh so you want to control what she does with her body" yadda yadda yadda. Just watch. You're going to start explaining it >:O

Do you think my wife will ever accept me having extra-martial affairs because "I believe in an open-relationship" or any other such shit? Really give me a break - your unrealistic views are laughable. And the same goes for all leftists.

I'm hoping for the best, I hope he can rise above himself, but so far, as far as I am concerned, it is the victory of mendacity and mediocrity, and the best we can hope for is something short of economic collapse. — Wayfarer

Trump could be dangerous that's true. But it's not because he's stupid. It's because he's fucking smart and ruthless and will go to great lengths to do what he wants to do. He's not mediocrity - mediocrity doesn't build towers, mediocrity is smoking weed, drinking with your buddies, going to hookers, etc. Trump is very very far from mediocrity. He plays a role - that of the buffoon - because it gives him a massive advantage. People laugh at him instead of get ready to fight back. Crooked laughs at him and thinks she has the election in her hand - but Trump is out there working till 3 AM in the morning, rally after rally. He's working his butt off getting what he wants. You don't become President sitting in bed, you don't get that being mediocre - unless you have a powerful husband or well-connected friends who want to put you there because you're good and docile and will do as they require you to do.

The thing is like this. Trump is not a good man. But he is a strong man. There's a huge difference between him and other politicians. He's strong - powerful. The others aren't. The very big problem of this world is that we don't have strong men in politics anymore. Trump is the exception - but he's not good, he doesn't have the moral character that a leader ought to have. But he's nevertheless better than those who lack even the strength needed for leadership. People would rather have a strong evil leader, than a weak leader.

Yes that was a good video, but I doubt Sanders would have beaten Trump. Trump is a very good competitor, and he has been through his life. If you look at his life, he's quite frequently been the underdog and won - he would have beaten Sanders. What I find amazing is the amount of people who think Trump is an idiot. Trump is very far from being an idiot, he's in fact very calculated and very well planned. He makes it seem like he's throwing a tantrum, but watch him closely - he's only doing that when it would be to his advantage to do so. He has moments when he is surprisingly quiet, despite attempts to elicit his anger. Even when he appears angry, he is in fact very controlled, he could stop any moment. He's not a hysteric who can't control his reactions.

When all the euphoria wears off and the real work has to be done, then we'll see what it really means. — Wayfarer

Trump is far far more capable than Clinton will ever be to do ANYTHING AT ALL. Listen for once - Crooked has never done a single thing in her entire life. It's always been the folks around her - an entire system which was getting things done, she was only a tool for that system, a piece in the mechanism. She never did a single thing she wanted to do by herself. She always had a bunch of people around her telling her "do this, do that" etc. It's simple really. She has a good record only because she's been around the right people her whole life! But she has no capacity! Wake up! Look at it, she had everything put on the table. You, me, any of us can be Secretary of State or whatever if our best friends are Presidents and all around the governmental administration. It takes absolutely 0 skill. Going to sign international treaties - no skill. You go with a million pundits around you, telling you do this, do that, now we have to do X, now we have to do Y - it's so fucking simple. An idiot can do it. That's why most politicians are exactly that.

Look at it. Wake up! Trump did everything he has done and wanted to do by himself. He opposed many people and won, not once, but multiple times. He went out there, and got it. That's a big difference - it actually takes brain to do that. Friends can't do that for you. Connections can't do that for you. That takes real intelligence. It takes courage to stand up and go your own way. You try building the equivalent of Trump tower - see how difficult it is. In fact forget that - try building just an apartment building, you'll see how difficult it is, everything from getting the finance, to finding the right location, to getting permits, to negotiating every single deal regarding the contractor, architect, engineer, budgeting the project and so forth. You try running such a project. Then you'll realise that Trump is extremely intelligent, despite the appearances to the contrary. That's why he's been beating all the fools - he's made them think "oh Trump is just a fucking idiot, he's got no chance".

I don't agree with Trump on many points. But I respect Trump - Trump is a man of high abilities and high capacity. He's proven it over and over again, despite all the opposition he has faced. You should respect your opponent if you are to ever hope to beat them. If you don't take your opponents seriously you're going to lose - that's rule number 1 in any competition.

They should say that to Crooked Hillary who is living like a millionaire off their backs! ;)

Change is painful (the music these kids listen to these days, jeez), and to stave off your impending mortality, you try to grab and hang onto as much stuff as you can. This inevitably results in politically conservative jerking of the knees. You suddenly realize that soon you will cease to be, so until then its, "Me, me, me!" — Real Gone Cat

Oh so who was up and running with the sexual revolution, etc.? The Right? No that's the Left. The "me me me" - that's always been the left.

How can anyone choose that evil oompah-loompah over a sober adult is beyond me — Real Gone Cat

Oh yeah, Crooked Hillary is a "sober adult" - give me a break, that's a shame of a person. Worse than Trump - at least Trump has a certain honor about him, he will not lick up to folks to get what he wants. Crooked Hillary immediately licks up to the special interests who give her money. She should really be ashamed of herself - the person who wants to be President goes licking bankers, and hedge fund managers, and other rich folks >:O Sooner or later we'll hear about the Clinton-Soros sex scandal I'm sure >:O

(There was some salon or slate article about how it's insensitive to discuss the reasons for Hillary's loss beyond sexism at least until female hillary supporters have time to grieve...that's insane but I've seen people in my fb circle say similar things) — csalisbury

Yes it's insane, that's why I've been rubbing it in their faces every single chance I've been getting. Let them call me a sexist, a mysoginist, I don't give a fuck. Losers, as far as I'm concerned. If they're going to cry like babies, and "grieve" for Crooked Hillary's loss >:O - that's funny as hell! They should remember that Crooked has millions stashed away and is living like an Empress on their backs.

Greatest. Post. I've. Ever. Read. On. These. Forums! Couldn't agree more. Thanks for your input! :D

I've been on the Left when very young. Unfortunately the kind of people I found over there were so shallow, and so hypocritical that I couldn't stand a single second around them. I feel like I've lost my sympathy for many real problems - such as the suffering of illegal immigrants who are granted no protection by law and are in many cases abused - simply because these folks on the Left abuse these categories of people for their own political (and economic, for slave labor) benefits. And then the way they go out solving problems - getting naked for Clinton, violently protesting in the streets, being rude etc. disgusts me to no end (not to mention that they don't work). I don't see this as being worthy of the dignity of mankind.

I've also lost my sympathy for many women's issues simply because of the behaviour of those women on the Left, which is nothing short of despicable. I shouldn't have to tolerate the arrogance, impiety, and total disregard for everything that has to do with community and life from someone like Amy Schumer. It's a shame that such a person ever gets to become wealthy from talking about vagina and how cool it is to kill babies all day. I mean can any man - and I'm referring to those men who are still men and have some dignity left - can any man ever accept to marry Amy Schumer? I mean I wouldn't marry her even if you were to kill me if I refused. And what has she done for the world? She has made women into male abusers, and men into pussy-worshipers. Or to listen to her and to many young girls finding it "cool" that Amy doesn't give a fuck about her boyfriend and purposefully does things he doesn't like and feels that's fine. She should be ashamed of herself. I really hope one day she will get punished for it. It's people like this that make many of us on the right have no sympathy for their cause, but moreover hate it with a hatred that would rather see the world burn than in their hands.

I've lost my sympathy for many of the struggles of colored folks, also because of the behaviour of those on the Left, who merely seek to replace the hirearchy instead of eliminate it. For example there is a police shooting of a black person who was killed even though he had done nothing wrong. I find it hard to sympathise when I see that a white male loses against a black female for a university position not because he is less capable, but because she is black and female, and he is white and male. That is again shameful and outrageous. I fear that if this continues the white folks will sooner or later get sick of it, and then it will not be nice at all for any of us. This is certainly not the way to promote brotherhood amongst different races. I have many friends of color - our skin color has always been irrelevant, no one even mentions it. That's the way it should be.

Instead we get all sorts of losers - actors, the media and Hollywood - who are the primary engine of the Left - who promote this racial hatred. They blame it all on the white man. The white man is the devil. And they always remind the black man how he must hate the white man, and they always remind him how he has suffered and been unjustly treated. Which is true. But always keeping in mind the past, and being attached to it, will in no way make the present any different. That's what the Left doesn't get. They are building a tremendous amount of hatred in the Right. And when this hatred will be unleashed we will all suffer a lot more than they've ever imagined. They will never get their sick world, where whites are ostracised, where men would do anything for pussy, where women will never be held accountable for their actions/behaviour, where we have no borders and let illegals come in the country to abuse them for their labor.

I've lost my sympathy for many of the young people. Young people used to have big dreams - Alexander dreamed to conquer the world, Aquinas dreamed to become a great scholar, and so forth. The young of today dream to do nothing, travel the world, get drunk, and have sex. How can anyone have any sympathy for such worms? Is that worthy of the life and dignity of a man? The young of today have a very short memory - they don't remember anything, they don't take any positions, they don't have any aspirations - except for those "aspirations" that Hollywood and the Media Crooks give them. I could swear that you can punch one in the face, and the next day, they'll be your friends.

It's sad, but true. The outrageous actions on the Left have built and will continue to build a tremendous amount of hatred. It's true that one shouldn't feel vengeful, shouldn't feel hatred. But there comes a point when their actions become so outrageous and so petty that one would rather see the world burn than handed over to these fools. Hence the hatred that seems to be coming from many of us on the Right. I will finish with this quote from Kierkegaard which describes my feelings best:

“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”

This was definitely the best debate so far. The previous two debates were clearly staged against Donald Trump in the format, as they never tackled the real issues. They only asked very generally about the economy, what Trump thinks about some Aleppo picture, etc. This debate actually went over things very well and wasn't biased towards one candidate.

Their performance was close - too close to call I'd say. Trump is shorter on the facts compared to Crooked, but his goals for America are better than hers. He's clearly less capable intellectually than she is, and simply is a very different kind of man when it comes to this.

Trump wants to overthrow Roe v Wade - excellent. Crooked argues like all progressives "it's too late to do that, we've gone too far" >:O

Ask the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP) and Watergate-disgraced president Richard M. Nixon how well that approach worked. — Bitter Crank

So you're saying that in politics people will not use all weapons they have against each other, including propaganda and unfair ones?

This just proves my point about Hillary: despite decades of scrutiny from the right, all they have to hit her with is fabricated scandals and non-issues. If this person is such a terrible politician and statesman (as the right has been bleating for years), why do conservatives need to constantly lie, distort, and dissemble in order to attack her? Wouldn't her actual words and deeds suffice? — Arkady

You forget one thing: in politics anything goes. If I can make my opponent even worse than he/she actually is, why not do it?

Good - now get off the proxy >:O I never understood why people are so scared to access websites like wikileaks... as far as I know, esp. where I am it's not illegal to access. And why should it be illegal - you're just having access to what millions of other people have access to anyways.

So the claim appears to be that Trump has tried to exploit the issue of Obama's true heritage, first raised by the Clinton campaign in 2007.

Except he didn't. — tom

He did exploit it, not during this election, but previously.

I never questioned the fact that Crooked started the birther movement - of course she did. But she dropped it soon after, while Trump insisted on it for a very long time.

Regarding your interest in having Trump try to overturn laws/Supreme Court decisions on abortion, or undermine progressivism in general, isn't that just a case of "when things don't go [my] way, [I'm] willing to do anything to make them go that way". — Michael

Sure, but I freely admit there is an objective standard which the law should try to approximate to, so I see myself as being justified in doing whatever is necessary to the law in order to make it approximate that standard. But as far as I know, you're not a moral absolutist, so you're not playing the same game as I'm playing. If you are a moral absolutist, then that's good - then we're on a levelled playing field, but you should at least say so :)

Anything? I said any legal route. — Michael

;) What difference would that make if you were the one making the laws?

Now I recall our debate on Brexit and my willingness to accept any (legal) route to ignore the referendum result. ;) — Michael

Typical progressives :P - when things don't go their way, they're willing to do anything to make them go that way. And by the way, I'm not a sympathiser of Brexit at all.

Pretty much. Women don't have to do anything in particular for men to feel that way. In a society where women are not locked away, where they are free to participate in society and draw attention, care, time and resources from others, men will notice beautiful women all the time.

If we are expecting women not to be noticed by men, we are asking them to withdraw from public life, to have no interest in gaining from the wider community, to care not for their public status (e.g. job, friends, whether they are likeable to a stranger) and to cover themselves head to toe, so they aren't recognisable as an individual who draws attention. To be someone, and wanting to be someone, who is sexually desirable to others is part of existing in public life, by the mere fact of people paying attention to you, sharing their time and resources, as is part of loving in the public sphere.

Many men feel "under the spell and control of beauty" by nothing more than a woman walking down the street in jeans and t-shirt. Or the smiling waitress with a presentable casual uniform. Or the woman in a blouse and slacks working in the office. Merely by living and interacting with others, women are people who are desired. Unless women get locked away, this is something men are going to have to deal with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're not reading the question. Let's go over it again.

Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right? — Agustino

The question isn't about the fact that by the mere fact of their existence women will attract attention, care, time and resources. It's not about the fact that by their mere living in society they will attract attention to themselves. The question is whether they should WANT that. I can attract all the attention in the world when I go in the street. It doesn't follow that I should actively seek to do that - ie want it. It can be just another fact of my existence, just like my shadow. So I'm asking you whether it's honorable to WANT to be desired sexually. Whether it's honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, and under the spell and control of your beauty?

My point was not that they were moral, but that you were equivocating a woman's appearance and behaviour with her desire to have sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No actually I haven't. That's what you think I was thinking. It's clearly not what I have written.

You say she wants to dominate you here, but previously your arguments were saying she wanted to have sex because of how she appeared or behaved — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - my arguments never said she wants to have sex. Only that she wants to dominate. Having sex may or may not be part of that.

If you made a pass at that woman or even raped her, it would be justified because she really "wanted it." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all. I actually claimed the contrary.

You insisted the women really wanted his sexual attention (meaning, you know, he hasn't violated consent and the women haven't been abused by being acted on sexual against their will) — TheWillowOfDarkness

I insist that SOME of the women wanted his sexual attention - and even if they wanted it, they were still abused. Just wanting something or consenting to it doesn't mean you're not abused.

Because many states which register to men as "sexually desirable" are a mere fact of their existence or are somehow related to other social relations, personal expression, maintaining employment, being interesting to others, etc.,etc. It's not fucking hard, Agustino. You just have to take a moment and think about what matters to women, what she needs to do to maintain social relations, be someone who lives with others etc., etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm getting sick and tired of you not reading what I'm writting and asking you. Again you answered an entirely different question, an answer with which of course I agree! I doubt you'll ever find a person who doesn't agree. But my question was different. it's not whether states of women are "sexually desirable" or necessary for social relations, etc.

Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate? — Agustino

It's whether they WANT to be sexually desirable or not. She can be the most beautiful women and go out there normally, and attract the attention of all the men she passes by - sure. But that has nothing to do with whether she actually wants to do this. Someone can be unconcerned about whether they are sexually desirable or not. Or someone can WANT to be sexually desirable. So I'm asking you why, if she's not available, would she WANT to be sexually desirable - not why she may be sexually desirable nonetheless because of other factors that are, let's say, not up to her.

Here you go, you wanna talk about Russia Wayfarer? Fine, let's talk about Russia... Crooked will do anything to get elected or make some money - she will sell her country for nothing if that's what it takes to make herself powerful. Her screams of Russia Russia are just her attempts to get fools to support her - fools who still buy into the Cold War nonsense. The world has moved on... Russia is in fact already winning against the US. It's sad but true. Look at the Middle East. Look at Iran, look at Turkey, look at Syria - all these places the US is losing. Look at Ukraine - what the fuck is that? Is that Crooked fighting the Russians? That's why the Russians are gaining ground everywhere? Give me a break... She just wants to be powerful and make money - she doesn't want to fight the Russians, that is certainly a secondary concern for her.

What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated? — tom

He's referring to the birther issue - that Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't US born.

>:O WikiLeaks isn't the Kremlin you know... Assange has published damaging information on China, US, Russia, etc. so based on what is that contention? Based on Crooked's phobia that Russia is interfering in the elections? Everytime something goes wrong she screams Russia - it's a bit of a joke, we're not living in the Cold War you know. I know you enjoyed your 60s and 70s, but still, the world has moved on. There much bigger interests out there than US and Russia - primarily trans-national economic interests that are funding Crooked, which is what WikiLeaks is exposing. Even if Russia did try to get involved in the US elections, what does that have to do with WikiLeaks and their releases?

Crooked is trying to stop WikiLeaks at the moment and shut them up - because she knows they got her. Ecuador cut Assange's internet for the release. Interesting to see you fight for the money interests.

first female president of my country. — Mongrel

>:O these firsts don't mean anything. Look at Obama. First black President. Did things improve for blacks? For many things haven't improved at all - they still face problems of poverty, lack of education and rampant crime. But now folks get to tell them "Why are you complaining - look you have a black President!" These firsts are just getting yourself drunk on nothing, they're actually more unhelpful than helpful.

OK, so the love is in the person. If the person really loves then their acts will be moral, no? So where does duty come into it? If you do something you want to do (out of love) it is not a matter of duty and it will be moral, or else the love was not genuine. — John

"If the person really loves then their acts will be moral" - no. Have I said that? I said that for morality to be the case their intention must be loving, and their action based on duty. The fact that "if the person really loves then their acts will be moral" is your thinking, not mine. You asked me on what morality is based - so I told you what it is based for me. That's my framework. Now it seems you want to question the framework, but if so, then you should make this clear instead of presupposing another framework in order to question it.

It's possible that someone is loving and yet still fails to be moral. Love is no guarantee of morality in and by itself. There's many instances of this because we live under time. Love is destroyed and replaced under time. The only thing which can keep it constant and eternal is duty. Say I love my friend today. What ensures I'll love them tomorrow as well, and my love for them will not be momentarily replaced by my love for a dog, such that I end up doing something good for the dog and bad for my friend? Duty. Duty guarantees eternity to love sub specie durationis.

On another thread, I participated in a discussion about anger, jealousy and envy, where someone claimed that envy was a always a source of evil, whereas anger and jealousy were not always sources of evil, and were sometimes sources of good. I agreed with this in regard to anger, but argued that envy and jealousy are closely linked and that jealousy, like envy is always negative. The other claimed that jealousy is righteous, that is just, anger over someone taking what is rightfully yours. I disagreed and said that I think jealousy is actually pre-emptively envying the other (even if it is only a general or imaginary 'other') for having what you want. — John

Who is this person? >:) >:O