If there are no prospective adulterers among the membership - people who can be encouraged or enabled to commit adultery - then it is very difficult to see who could be defrauded. — photographer

I argue that most members are/were prospective adulterers given the official aims of the website (to attract adulterers). It would be unreasonable to believe otherwise.

It's not the members who were deceived, but the partners of those members; quite obviously the adulterer is the criminal, not the victim.

On a side note, I'm having difficulty separating your caliphate from ISIS, except on the basis of tactics. — photographer

*facepalm* Yes let's see... what comparison is there between people who want to kill others because they have different beliefs, and I who want to punish those who do injustice unto others, who abuse others, and who deceive others? If protecting people from being swindled, decieved, and abused is what you call being similar to ISIS, then I feel sorry for you.

Also I never mentioned any hacking. For what purpose did you bring that up? We're not discussing the legality of hacking them, we're discussing the fact that they should be outlawed for being divisive, anti-social, and encouraging illegal activity.

Keep in mind that adultery, if by this we understand sex outside of marriage, is not necessarily objectionable. Open marriages exist, and in that case, it is clearly acceptable as both parties have agreed upon it. However, this type of adultery isn't the type that my OP was dealing with.

If you're so concerned about anti-social behaviour you might equally argue that prospective adulterers aren't deserving of protection from fraud. — photographer

First define what counts as "prospective" adulterers, and how they can be identified. Second, I don't understand how it follows from my argument that prospective adulturers aren't deserving of protection from fraud...

Ashley Madison is headquartered here in Canada. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see our current Liberal government prosecuting them or supporting extradition to the U.S. under what would be a law which would in essence be the legislation of morality (and directly contravening the first amendment and our charter of rights and freedoms). — photographer

That is not the question. Do you think they should or shouldn't be prosecuted, and why or why not? I understand Canadian government may not prosecute them, but that is a different question.

However, I disagree that this is the legislation of morality, as much as it is the prevention of socially harmful behaviour and fraud (yes, breaking a marriage contract, especially if done with intent of deceiving the other - entails gaining an unfair advantage over the other party).

PS: Notice, that this also means that failure to, for example, wear a scarf, can be punished as the respective culture decides. Why? Because everyone can wear a scarf. Same with homosexuality in this case - everyone can be gay, and yet not engage in homosexual practices. Because of these reasons, what punishments are is irrelevant. What matters more is what is condemned and what is not condemned by law. If having black skin is condemned - then something is wrong (in other words no culture can justify condemning having black skin), because people don't get to decide whether they have black skin or not: hence people are "destined" to break the law, which clearly is cruel towards them, cause they don't even have a chance. But they certainly get to decide whether they commit adultery, engage in homosexual practicies, or wear a scarf (ESPECIALLY when they are aware of the consequences of doing so). There's no comparison there. Hence in one case justice is done by the application of the law in punishing individuals, and in the other - it is a case where the law is used to justify murder (necessarily killing someone for reasons not under their control).

If a culture were to punish people merely for HOLDING gay preferences (without engaging in homosexual practicies), then again this would necessarily be morally wrong regardless of the structure of that culture - because people don't get to decide what their preferences are in the first place, hence they cannot be held accountable for it in front of the law or anyone else.

What exactly does "live and let live" mean to you? — John

It means exactly that no one culture is imposed over another. For example, we don't go in the Middle East to tell them what rules they should have about head scarves for women or not.

Also, do you not agree that there is necessarily a limited range "of acceptable values" (when it comes to any kind of human intercourse at least) if the aim is to live together in a civil-ized fashion? — John

Yes - but it's also culturally dependent to at least a large degree - even though so far in this thread I've argued it's completely culturally dependent for philosophical ease of argument. Some things may not be culturally dependent such as torturing members of a minority just for fun is wrong, regardless of whether it is accepted by a large majority. But a lot of issues, (such as headscarves being mandatory for women) is culturally dependent and should be allowed to be so.

The Assad regime is supported, and dictatorships are allowed to govern the Middle East, being the only form of government that works in those regions and can assure stability. The US and Russia shake hands over Syria in order to eliminate ISIS.

Everyone stands aside - doesn't sound plausible, nor will this guarantee the destruction of ISIS, which is a priority for the West.
Everyone joins and backs the most progressive opposition in Syria - just look what happened to Iraq when we tried to install a democracy
The Assad regime is destroyed - and replaced with what?? The area still needs a dictatorship, doesn't matter what its name is.

What I think you are failing to see is that an oppressor is one whose ethics are enforced upon others. — John

I agree, that has been my whole argument as well.

For me this is the essence of the right wing base assumption; that might makes right, that you may exploit others to your heart's content if you remain within the law — John

I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values.

You make a claim, that is it ethical for a society to kill gay people if a culture happens to enforce it, but then do everything to deny that's what you are actually saying, even as you proudly continue asserting it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is factually incorrect. I never claimed it is ethical to kill gay people if a culture happens to be anti-gay and enforces it. What you may ARGUE I claimed (and even that is unlikely given my arguments), is that such a culture would not be wrong to outlaw gay practices (in either case, this does not imply it is right to do so, or that it should do this). It remains for you to show how X not being wrong necessitates that X is either right, or that it should be done.

Furthermore, you have strawmanned what I said. Gay people can exist all they want in Iran - what is outlawed is not being gay - but rather practicing homosexuality. Someone can still be gay and yet remain abstinent from homosexual practices if the laws of the country where they live demand this. Now this means that someone could campaign for homosexuals to receive rights, but cannot do so in a manner that breaks the law - ie, having gays kiss, hold hands, or any other practice that is judged to be homosexual according to the law which outlaws such practices. The law cannot be protested against by BREAKING the law. The protest must remain within the confinements of the law. Now - if the state punishes one of its peoples in a way that is not according to its own laws, then it loses legitimacy, and the people are entitled to usurp the powers of the state. Does this warrant foreign intervention? Maybe.

What I mean is that, when one group has power over another, the removal of oppression takes this away. The oppressed group gains something they did not have before. By definition, the oppressed gain an "advantage" compared to be they had when oppression ends. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - also by definition that is not an "advantage". If me and a fellow worker should both be earning 5$ because that's what our work is worth, and I trick management to pay me 7$ while paying him 3$, then the resolution of this is not in him gaining an advantage - since a priori his salary should have been 5$, which is what it will become. In this case, he gains justice, and I lose my unfair advantage.

Ego tunnel is great - people all give me deodorant and cologne... I must really stink I think :O

Socialism is a process: not an event, not a political party, not a person. What Marx was talking about was the self-liberation of the working class. Lots of amped up and impatient people want to skip over all sorts of necessary steps and jump-start the Revolution. The revolution of the working class can not begin until the working class is ready to do it en masse by and for themselves. — Bitter Crank

A process that is by its very nature oppressive and conflictual, as the working class is supposed to overthrow the capitalist class and impose its values on them - thus creating values which are universal, as Marx put it (that is in fact how Marx attributed universality to those values - a universality achieved by the fist). In the process, of course all family values will be overthrown - the family will be removed as a social structure - and we're all going to be forced to live in "free love", sharing our lovers with the whole rest of mankind, because we are now all equal. In the process we will all become like isolated islands, who sometimes touch, but never for long. Of course, I'm most certain that our nature will not interfere with us while we seek to achieve this - I mean how dare our instinct to exclusivity with our lovers interfere with our socialist dreams? And even if it does, it's easy - all those in whom such an instinct dares to manifest must certainly suffer from some type of mental illness, and thus they deserve our pity and "help". Afterall, our scientific studies, that we have done amongst our healthy-minded (which of course means socialist) circles, prove that such instincts and desires are most unnatural, and certainly an abnormality. People displaying them are simply the victims of capitalist oppression... After we "help" them, they will will surely realise the magnificence of the socialist dream. And on an economic level - how dare someone desire to have something his neighbour doesn't have? I mean isn't that the most selfish, and unnatural of desires, born out of capitalist oppression? On a cultural level - how dare someone want to play a game which has winners and losers? Surely such people deserve our pity and "help", then they will certainly see the glory of our socialist dreams. They will be dignified working and owning their own labour, and everyone will be satisfied with what they have - our games will have no winners and no losers, and now everyone will be entirely equal and will not be haunted by emotions of oppression.

Finally, communism has been achieved. We all shag our sisters, live in free love, and have the same lack of resources that everyone else has. None of us is any different, and we all receive the same treatment. In this world none of us desire to feel superior to anyone else, and even if we do, we don't have the means. There is no more shame, as everything has become acceptable - if you want to fuck the communal dog, then that is most certainly acceptable, how dare anyone oppress you for it? What a wonderful world, I'm sure that if this was reality I would most certainly not want to put a bullet in my head.

Ghastly dictatorships, rule through violence, ruthless exploitation of human resources, genocidal drives (or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing) and so on all have many exemplars. Workers' self-liberation through revolution, not so much. — Bitter Crank

Yes, welcome to reality - this is what is required to achieve your socialist dream. You just do not have courage and do not want to be pragmatic about the issue. How else, if not through oppression, could the Marxist values ever become universal?

Stalin was despicable. If he wasn't quite as bad as Hitler; even if he was a lot better than Hitler, he was still appallingly cruel, vicious, paranoid, ruthless, and drenched in blood. Maybe Soviet methods needed to be ruthless, cutting as many corners as they were on Karl Marx's idea for workers self-liberation. Russia scarcely had a working class when the Soviets opened up for business, so a lot of ground had to be skipped over (meaning, lots of people had to be forced to cooperate or be shot) — Bitter Crank

Stalin was worse than Hitler. At least Hitler had an agenda - Stalin just ordered a certain percentage of the population from X region to be killed and signed the papers himself. For no reason, except his own paranoia. The difference between Hitler and Stalin is the difference between evil and insanity. Insanity is worse. But yes - poor Marx - he had always failed to realise the opposition that our nature has towards socialism - but Stalin knew it. He did what was required in order to change our nature and achieve socialism. He should be the hero of all socialists as he dared do the only thing that was necessary to achieve the socialist dream. Long live comrade Stalin!!

Political allegiances are like tastes for certain kinds of food, or aesthetic taste in general. When you 'argue' with a leftist you each valorize your own tastes. All philosophical positions of any kind are based on starting assumptions which are themselves not rationally justified; they are accepted as axioms. When it comes to what is accepted as axiomatic by political disputants, what is 'self evident' to each one is arrived at by 'what feels right' to them, in other words it is biased by their conditioned preferences; into which many complex influences feed. A persons taste in food, clothes, even art, is not much of a moral matter; we might find certain things others like in these areas distasteful, even disgusting, but when it comes to politics, including sexual politics, it is much more closely aligned with the ethics of human life in general. There are no serious discussions going on in this arena, just the usual mud and meme-flinging.

I don't have to justify my preference for left wing values; I simply have an emotional preference and consequent feelings of support for dispositions of compassionate concern and love of freedom as opposed to dispositions of malicious or indifferent exploitation and domination. For me it comes down to aestheticization of ethics, as it did for Nietzsche. — John

Good - according to your theory your ethics cannot be enforced upon others since you yourself admit it's the product of your emotional preferences, and hence something unique to you and therefore not universal :) - hence my critique applies directly to you.

Ok Big Boss, that must most surely be done. Your will is our law!

Why did they commit suicide? Sex wasn't satisfying enough then?

So surely - they were joyous then :P - therefore there is joy

Ahh surely - but then what about those who could get laid?

Neither would there be any joy :P I will welcome the end when it comes - in the hands of the gods - as the Ancients would say - but it doesn't concern me much - only life makes sense to me, I cannot even conceive death anymore, except in the abstract. I feel immortal, even if I die.

The world ending? Why the hurry? :P

What's with the depressing thoughts ? :P And btw, what's your avatar supposed to be?

Haha! What an epic turn-around!

"Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy—a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need." — Bitter Crank

Interesting - but I would disagree with Maslow that all those have to be treated as "needs", even if they may be perceived as being needs at first.

There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism) — Soylent

This does not follow. It does not follow that because it is not wrong (ie, no rights are broken) to interfere/harm another group that this is right. Therefore, a conservative may not use this as justification, and if they do, then they're committed to a fallacy.

Hitler wasn't much of a socialist.

True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party. — Bitter Crank

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire.

While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within). — Soylent

This presupposes that there is a way not to harm anyone while resolving this problem. I argue that the majority of the people in that community feel harmed by homosexual practices because this goes against their cultural values. Therefore, such practices are outlawed. However, out of compassion for homosexuals, the only remedy is for a society which appreciates them, and can truly provide a satisfactory environment for such individuals to flourish to take them from the society which is incapable, due to other commitments, to do this for them.

is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live. — Thorongil

Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values.

Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms. — Thorongil

This needs to be argued.

Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes. — Thorongil

I think free societies have an obligation to protect their citizens, and so to the extent that oppressive societies seek to increase their strength in order to subjugate them, etc. they have a right to take action to stop this from happening. So yes - by and large, I agree with you here.

I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position. — Thorongil

What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks!

There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable. — John

Justify both statements please.

"By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16 — John

Agreed.

I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me.

This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" — Thorongil

I'm not - because if I did it would be very messy. Meaning is use, hopefully the meaning will elucidate itself through the way this thread has been progressing (and I encourage you and everyone else to read the whole thread - the only way to truly understand what is currently going on). It's very difficult, because as you and others have said - these positions have kept changing historically, and they're not, at the moment, very useful or informative. Further difficulties are added by mine, as well as other members vague use(s) of the term(s). But we have no other terminology, so unfortunately, what can I do?

I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. — Thorongil

Me too. Which is why this is the first (and probably the only) political thread that I'll engage in, in both PF and TPF.

Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. — Thorongil

Ok.

Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea) — Thorongil

I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing.

So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not? — Thorongil

I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it.

MERRY CHRISTMAS BOYS AND GIRLS!!! :) Hope our community thrives, and thanks to all of you for the opportunity you have given me to have intelligent discussions together, and hopefully learn something from each other! :) All the best!

It's so easy to be a leftist - all you have to do is scream XYZ meme to everything your opponents say. Because that is how intellectual discussions have to be carried out when you don't have any real arguments :)

↪Agustino But that's shown to be utterly wrong throughout history. We've had regimes, for example, that locked-up, murdered and otherwise ostracised gay people for fucking centuries. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And we had regimes which didn't. What do you mean to say, that the world is very diverse in its customs and what it deems acceptable or not? Sure it is! But just like one culture deems it unacceptable to use hallucinogenic drugs, another culture deems it unacceptable to engage in gay sex. What's wrong with that? Cultural norms - that's all.

If a an oppressed group doesn't gain "an advantage" they are still oppressed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, all that needs to happen is that oppressed groups stop being oppressed, not that they gain advantages. That is like desiring that the poor replace the rich - nonsense.

No, conservatism is fueled by wealthy oppressors, intent on exploiting others. They are pathological. — Landru Guide Us

This statement is pathological. Just consult a psychiatrist if you don't believe me. It's the same as the Nazi's labeling the Jews as the source of their problems; you label the conservatives. Same old rotten socialist ideology - because yes, Hitler was a socialist. Instead of assuming responsability for the state you are in, you point your finger and cry - Nietzsche's Last Man.

In any case, the whole purpose of conservatism is to exploit others and enrich the rich - kind of like slave owners. — Landru Guide Us

Hey, why don't you open your own business, work hard, be smart, and achieve all the success you want, instead of complaining that others have more than you do. Of course they have more than you - they have worked to achieve that. Is it because "you don't want to exploit others"? Or is that perhaps just an excuse to mask inability? The fox who cannot reach up to the grapes says they are sour.

Isn't it odd that of all the problems of the world, including the vast oppression of minorities and the poor by the rich, Agustino has decided the the most important issue for him is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays. Now that's a noble cause. — Landru Guide Us

This is hilarious beyond measure... another proof that you are just rhethoric and nothing else. You misinform people and are a liar. Where have I said that "the most important issue is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays"? You're out of your mind, plain and simple.

This is another conservative trope: say something and then say you didn't say it, looping back over and over again. — Landru Guide Us

Ok, so show me where. All of us have big mouths, but let's see, can we walk the talk as well?

You defended the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate and bemoaned interference by goodgoody liberals in trying to stop them. You called this, amazingly, a "fundamental right". — Landru Guide Us

No I don't. Fundamental rights are given by each state in particular. There are no rights beyond the state. A man by birth has no more rights than a tiger has.

So stop pretending. It's clear you just don't like gays, and probably other minorities, and have hit upon the idea of noninterference with oppressive regimes (my that is so important!) as a justification. — Landru Guide Us

A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactics :)

No, I think your analogy simply doesn't hold. There's no comparison between conservatives, many of whom are just normal people like me and you, and thus hold no power of life and death over you, and slaveowners and their slaves. Slaveowners could do whatever they wanted to their slaves. If you think conservatives can do whatever they want to you, then I suggest you seek the help of a medical professional.

It's a matter of the logical expression of their understand an actions. The truth of how people are valuing and treating others is what matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's more complicated than this. People can often feel persecuted even when they aren't. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon, especially if they have been oppressed in the past. So it's not that simple to judge whether someone really is oppressed, or they're just feeling oppressed, or worse - they claim to be oppressed to obtain certain advantages.

So slaves can't expect the respect of slaveholder is they call them criminal and evil. — Landru Guide Us

What are you talking about... slaves by definition cannot expect the respect of the slaveholder, regardless of whether they call him God or devil.

In arguing it is right (i.e. moral) for certain society to lock them-up and kill them, just because those in power enforce such a rule. Even in the face of those living in the respective country expressing it is immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well clearly you are not aware that if this was the case, the regime doing it wouldn't be long in power. There were several assassination attempts even on Hitler's life in the middle of the war. Just imagine if Hitler had won the war how quickly he would have been assassinated. The invisible hand works even in politics...

And I haven't argued it is moral to lock them up or to kill them. Please cite where I did.

but rather that their ideology is such that it advocates various minorities are of lesser value and that associate which does this is not of ethical concern (to the people living in it, I might add). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think many conservatives would agree with this...

Just be honest and admit you hate and fear gays. Get it over with. You'll feel better. — Landru Guide Us

I honestly don't though...

Yes, I can says conservatives are evil. Conservatives are pathological and hate the other. Eschew it before it consumes you. — Landru Guide Us

Well if this is the case - notice you have broken the limit and have gone into hate speech - you cannot demand or expect that any conservative behave nicely towards you. Because it would be like a Westerner behaving nicely to a Jihadist who wants to kill him... nonsense.

No, I don't. Hatred of peoples' condition is a sickness. Claiming discrimination against Jews is bad, but not against gays, is borderline pathological.

I'm glad you've exposed your ugly homophobic agenda. — Landru Guide Us

Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both.

Ok, if nobody says that, then why enforce such a value?

The students on the campus, many of them minorities, believe that. So I'm going to listen to them.

In addition to that I have heard enough of hateful conservative rhetoric to know it is all dog whistling intent on attacking minorities and inciting violence and discrimination. So bravo to those students for speaking out against the conservative bullies. — Landru Guide Us

But surely you have to recognise that this must be prejudice... you can't possibly claim that millions of conservatives are all evil and hateful people who want to oppress others... it's just so unfair.

Because people should be able to live in their own country without being persecuted for having gender preferences? History shows that when hatred and discrimination is allowed to hound people out of country, that country is probably going to find other people to oppress, even if that means going to war. — Landru Guide Us

Who says they should in all cases?

Your post would have been well received by Nazis, who said the same thing about Jews. — Landru Guide Us

Nazism was based on a racial theory which claimed that the Jewish race was INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. The theory I presented above doesn't claim that homosexuals are INHERENTLY inferior, AND/OR EVIL. See the difference? It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition.

You believe they were intimidating minorities. That is just that, your opinion, and I understand you believe like that. I don't think all conservatives in the world intimidate minorities. You seem to think all do. That remains to be proven.

Let's take the group that was largely discussed today: homosexuals. Am I personally against homosexuals?

This is problematic. A nation's self-interest may not be sustainability at all costs - in other words, a nation may have certain desires regarding the form it wants to exist in which are more important than mere survival. For example, I can imagine an Islamic state having as prime goal the flourishing of an Islamic culture - this can mean a culture which upholds Islamic values and a measure they may want to implement is laws against homosexuality for example. So I suggest instead of disallowing them to do this, which can never be justified because no values are universal - other nations choose to help them in the following way: "We'll take your homosexuals and make them our citizens, and instead we want X reduction in tariffs on Y good". In this way, trade is helped, and both nations fulfill their values, instead of one nation imposing its values on the other. — Agustino

Yeah right, and I recommend the West to take on Iranian homosexuals, because I'm so anti-gay. I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro freedom. There's regions of the world where homosexuals obtain all the liberty they want. There's also regions where they don't. Why don't we all collaborate with each other to make sure homosexuals are in such a region, instead of attempting to make all regions accept homosexuals?

So now you're pretending to be reasonable after 30 posts dripping vitriol about the Left.

Won't work with me. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, because I think the Left is wrong in attempting to universalise the values it shares. Those values aren't all universal, and people should be allowed to be different and choose different ways of organising themselves as well...

No you don't. That's a trope conservatives often use. — Landru Guide Us

Okay, give proof please, I'm willing to listen and give counter evidence to you.