[Wiskedjak]

Gotta agree with besson there. Islamic terrorists want freedom just as much as the next guy; they want the freedom to impose on the world their version of how things should be done.

Until you stop trying to prevent people from doing things that have no impact on you, you aren't pro-freedom.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Absolutism rarely makes for rational discussion. Can I also not be a healthy eater if I have cake once in a while? Can I not be a safe driver if I accidentally made a lane change without signaling once?

Anyway, this all seems extremely beside the point to me. You were objecting to smacintush's use of the word "freedom" in one particular instance and somehow this has morphed into a discussion of how very few people are actually for freedom and some people who say they are for freedom are against certain freedoms and it all seems to have very little to do with smacintush's word use or the point he was making.

The problem is, the word "freedom" is used in very absolutist ways in politics, with specific implications that those who are against certain policies are somehow enemies of freedom. There are many people in here that seem to buy into this notion that one set of policies means accepting a removal of our freedoms unconditionally, while the other set preserves our freedom. It's sort of like implying that there are enemies of ice cream.

Take health care reform, for example. Some would say that the reform bill take make us less free, but others could argue that legalized theft in the form of taking your money and denying you coverage because of some bullshit pre-existing conditions loophole also jeopardizes our freedom to do business without being exploited by those that are in a position to do so, and that there should be safeguards to preserve our freedoms so that we are not taken advantage of this way.

Whether you want to call what I described freedom or not, the word "freedom" more often than not is used as a wedge to advocate one set of rules that provides freedom in some area and possibly jeopardizes freedom in another, and/or to imply at the same time that whatever is in opposition is some extreme sort of lack of freedom.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Gotta agree with besson there. Islamic terrorists want freedom just as much as the next guy; they want the freedom to impose on the world their version of how things should be done.

Until you stop trying to prevent people from doing things that have no impact on you, you aren't pro-freedom.

This sort of ties into what I'm saying, yes... Namely "freedom" just means "I want to be free to do the stuff that I care about", even if this is at the expense of what other people want, and that implicitly people that oppose are anti-freedom.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem is, very few of people that go on about freedom are actually for freedom, they are for freedom of the stuff they care about. You can't really be for freedom if you are against issues such as abortion, gay marriage, or gays serving in the military.

Well, based on your concept of freedom, we should allow everyone to do anything they want including molesting children, allow people to murder each other, etc. Where do we stop?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If President Obama was so "married to left-wing policy" he would have pressed for the public option in the health care reform bill.

I said "left-wing." Not "far left-wing." He'll knows there's a point where there is "too much, too soon." The problem is that his calculations as to where that point is are far off the mark. Like the other leftists pushing the current agenda, they know the plan is to get the framework in place so that way the real dirty work can come later.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Also disturbing is the fact that homosexuals are free to find Scott Brown's nude photo spread in Cosmo sexually gratifying without his consent.

It's my understanding that Brown consented to having his nude body looked at by anyone who would choose to view the issue of Cosmo in question, the same as someone who walks down the street naked gives consent. I don't see anything wrong with it because unless he made the choice, no one could look at his naked body. Right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well, based on your concept of freedom, we should allow everyone to do anything they want including molesting children, allow people to murder each other, etc. Where do we stop?

Yes Buckaroo, the use of the word "freedom" being abused means that we should all be able to do what we want.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well, based on your concept of freedom, we should allow everyone to do anything they want including molesting children, allow people to murder each other, etc. Where do we stop?

When you say "freedom" are you using it as defined by the definition posted by Chuckit?

Originally Posted by The Dictionary

1. the state of being free or at liberty
2. exemption from external control
3. the power to determine action without restraint

[besson3c]

The word "freedom" is just endemic of what politics as a whole has become where the rhetoric is perpetually an order of magnitude larger than the actual issues.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... where the rhetoric is perpetually an order of magnitude larger than the actual issues.

Funny. I could swear that this is exactly what YOU are doing in the PWL.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Funny. I could swear that this is exactly what YOU are doing in the PWL.

-t

Remember that conversation we had about the definition of trolling? Yeah.

[ThinkInsane]

Remember the conversation we're going to be having about derailing threads? You do have the freedom to start a new thread about the use of the word freedom and its connotations if you'd like. I will however be abridging your freedom to continue this query in this thread.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Yeah, but if he's buried next to his brothers, I think perhaps it's they who are getting the last laugh, especially JFK, for his positions today would be considered solidly conservative.

I think it's safe to say that the Democratic Party of JFK's time is a far different animal than its modern namesake. I often wonder how some of those old-timey Dems would feel about the current embodiment of the party.

[Madison]

Didn't Scott Brown support health care reform in Massachusetts that is very similar to the national health care reform that he is now opposing?

He's NOT opposing health care reform, he's opposing THIS health care reform, big difference. He's been in favor of health care reform all along, he voted for it here in Mass. (90% Democrat majority in house and senate), where we were told the cost would be $150 million/year, it's currently at $700 million/year and rising FAST.

He wants health care reform that doesn't include disemboweling Medicare, taxing people's health insurance plans, UNLESS you're in a Union, or a Federal worker, or a State worker, or a County worker, or a Town worker, or a member of Congress, etc.

That is all.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's my understanding that Brown consented to having his nude body looked at by anyone who would choose to view the issue of Cosmo in question, the same as someone who walks down the street naked gives consent. I don't see anything wrong with it because unless he made the choice, no one could look at his naked body. Right?

How enlightened of you. I agree completely. You should take this attitude into that other thread.

[andi*pandi]

Cosmo is a women's magazine, teh gays would never read it. Or would they?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

How enlightened of you. I agree completely. You should take this attitude into that other thread.

It is.

The point is that we shouldn't force people to give up the right to privacy of their body in order to serve. Brown had freedom of choice. Under current rules, so do the soldiers of the US Military for all intents and purposes.

People want to take away that right in order to serve a small minority who can't comply with the methods and means of training as it stands without forcing people to give up that right. That's really not fair.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Cosmo is a women's magazine, teh gays would never read it. Or would they?

I don't know. Maybe. Women read it, and he's a good looking guy. I'd guess that more than several probably became aroused by looking that him naked. Probably the same would go for any gay male who saw the photos. Probably not so much in regards to gay women.

[SpaceMonkey]

We'll need Oisín and/or Salty to confirm whether or not they become uncontrollably aroused by the sight of Senator Brown's peener.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is.

The point is that we shouldn't force people to give up the right to privacy of their body in order to serve.

And of course my point is that they already have, since closeted gays are already free to watch them shower as they please. But of course you already knew this, since we went round-and-round on it several months ago. Nevertheless you chose to post in here in response to my joke as if I had made a serious point. Congrats, you are a buzzkill. Keep this argument in your other thread please. I'm not interested in it.

[ort888]

This doing anything for anyone?

[turtle777]

That's it ? I'm disappointed, and I'm not even gay.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

He does have a nice landing strip.

[ort888]

I was disappointed too. They blurred it out whenever they showed it on TV, so I was expecting to see some man meat...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And of course my point is that they already have, since closeted gays are already free to watch them shower as they please.

You don't make a "choice" when someone dishonesty and unknowingly does something you don't want them to. It's not really much different than telling women that they have to let all the men look at them naked because they choose to shower naked, and at some point a man might view them via a peephole.

But of course you already knew this, since we went round-and-round on it several months ago.

Months later, your rebuttal still makes no sense. Logic doesn't change with the passage of time.

Nevertheless you chose to post in here in response to my joke as if I had made a serious point. Congrats, you are a buzzkill. Keep this argument in your other thread please. I'm not interested in it.

Right!

[SpaceMonkey]

Right. As I pointed out before, you are simply regurgitating the argument we had here. Please, go back and read it. Pretend with yourself that you are having the argument again for all I care. But since you haven't displayed any inclination to actually absorb anything, and re-running the argument isn't going to give either of us any satisfaction, I'm not interested in sidetracking this thread any further. Bye.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

From these 'gays people in the military' topics, I gather that all people in the military do is stand around in a shower all day, and rather than wash themselves, everyone watches everyone else.

Also, the military has nothing but big open showers where everybody is packed in a mere wiener distance apart from each other.

I realize this is pretty much a geek forum, but does anyone here ever actually hit a gym now and then? If so, do you shower after, or just leave in your usual state of stinky?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to the gym, I always shower after. I sometimes hit the steam room, and have to get undressed/dressed before and after a workout. Technically there are a bunch of other guys 'around' during each, but it's not like they're AROUND around, as in being all up in my or anyone else's business 'around'.

IE: it's somewhat the same area/location/room, etc. but it's not like you're ever really uncomfortably close to anyone else. In all the years I've had to be in some state of undress at the gym, I've never felt uncomfortable like it mattered a whole hill of beans if anyone else around was gay or straight or whatever.

So.....

Is it REALLY that much different in the military? (Okay, maybe on a sub or small ship or something where the confines are really much closer, but everywhere else in the military?)

Has the military not figured out whatever it is that fitness clubs seemed to have figured out to make it possible for a bunch of people of the same sex to be naked in the same generally area together without anyone having to suffer self doubts about their own sexual identity, or feel they were imagi-raped because some other dude caught a glimpse of their junk?

Perhaps in the military you're required to be really 'outstanding' and march around with your 'weapon' on full display whenever in a group-nakedness situation?

I gather there's an extreme lack of towels or anything else that can be used to cover junk.

I mean, really, WHAT THE F IS UP with these military showers that they are such sources of sexual identity crisis and complete loss of privacy? Can we not upgrade the armed forces' communal shower technology just a smidge and put an end to this terrible injustice? Can we get these folks some towels?

I mean, it really sucks that office workers, clerks, artists, programmers, salespeople etc. can be in a same-sex naked group environment and no one really gets traumatized over it... but warriors who are trained to get shot at and blow stuff up can't handle these terrible same-sex military showers without suffering from terminal SDGMJSD. (Some Dude Glimpsed My Junk Stress Disorder).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Right. As I pointed out before, you are simply regurgitating the argument we had here. Please, go back and read it.

I don't have to. I'm not "regurgitating" anything. I'm explaining AGAIN why your argument is not credible.

Pretend with yourself that you are having the argument again for all I care. But since you haven't displayed any inclination to actually absorb anything, and re-running the argument isn't going to give either of us any satisfaction, I'm not interested in sidetracking this thread any further. Bye.

Don't try and be funny about stuff you are wrong about. When you do that, someone is likely to further rub your nose in it to be "funny" right back.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

From these 'gays people in the military' topics, I gather that all people in the military do is stand around in a shower all day, and rather than wash themselves, everyone watches everyone else.

Also, the military has nothing but big open showers where everybody is packed in a mere wiener distance apart from each other.

I realize this is pretty much a geek forum, but does anyone here ever actually hit a gym now and then? If so, do you shower after, or just leave in your usual state of stinky?

I shower. In a facility segregated in order to separate my naked body from those who are most likely to either be offended or aroused by it. I can't shower with those I am sexually attracted to either. That's pretty much the norm for any gym I've ever been to.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to the gym, I always shower after. I sometimes hit the steam room, and have to get undressed/dressed before and after a workout. Technically there are a bunch of other guys 'around' during each, but it's not like they're AROUND around, as in being all up in my or anyone else's business 'around'.

At best, chances are probably only a few small percentage points that you'll ever be doing that around someone who secretly is "AROUND around."

[quote[IE: it's somewhat the same area/location/room, etc. but it's not like you're ever really uncomfortably close to anyone else. In all the years I've had to be in some state of undress at the gym, I've never felt uncomfortable like it mattered a whole hill of beans if anyone else around was gay or straight or whatever.[/quote]

Like I said, we are talking about something that you aren't likely doing everyday, in a place usually not heavily populated, with people who aren't likely to be looking. I think it would be different if you were showering every day in close quarters at around the same time with people you knew had incentive to probably look - the same way you would if a woman was showering next to you every day.

So.....

Is it REALLY that much different in the military? (Okay, maybe on a sub or small ship or something where the confines are really much closer, but everywhere else in the military?)

You mean like Basic Training that everyone goes through?

Has the military not figured out whatever it is that fitness clubs seemed to have figured out to make it possible for a bunch of people of the same sex to be naked in the same generally area together without anyone having to suffer self doubts about their own sexual identity, or feel they were imagi-raped because some other dude caught a glimpse of their junk?

See above. There's a world of difference between something you do occasionally in a less populated area where you often times don't really even know the other people and having to do the same thing EVERY TIME YOU ARE NUDE in close quarters, with a person or people who you know has some incentive to look.

As I've explained, any time you get naked there's the chance that someone's taking unfair advantage of you and looking at you without your permission. ANY TIME. The degree of comfort we have in getting naked is dependent upon the likelihood of this happening. With your example, the chances aren't that likely. With the examples I've given, you'd know exactly when you were in a position of reasonable vulnerability and wouldn't really have any choices to protect your right to privacy - you have to do what the military says, when they say it.

..and this isn't just about showers. Ask any woman if they want strange men sleeping next to them or able to watch them change their clothes when they aren't in the shower. I'm pretty sure most wouldn't want that either.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't have to. I'm not "regurgitating" anything. I'm explaining AGAIN why your argument is not credible.

And my answer to your explanation is already in that thread. In fact, IIRC, we had eventually even reached a détente of sorts in that thread, which is why I find your efforts now to drag us all the way back to the beginning of the conversation again so ridiculous. STOP.

OP, I'm sorry. I should have known not to try irreverent humor in the PWL.

[ThinkInsane]

I could have swore we had an active, nine page long thread on this topic. Maybe this line of thought could be continued there?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And my answer to your explanation is already in that thread. In fact, IIRC, we had eventually even reached a détente of sorts in that thread, which is why I find your efforts now to drag us all the way back to the beginning of the conversation again so ridiculous. STOP.

That's simply how he argues. Sometimes it only takes a few paragraphs for him to circle back to his "argument" that had already been adequately addressed, where he complains why no one can give him an answer.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And my answer to your explanation is already in that thread.

Why do you keep on insisting on bringing off-topic debates and arguments INTO THIS THREAD? I was happy to talk about Scott Brown and this past week's election.

In fact, IIRC, we had eventually even reached a détente of sorts in that thread, which is why I find your efforts now to drag us all the way back to the beginning of the conversation again so ridiculous. STOP.

I think that the detente was you stopping at your failing in trying to convince everyone that nudity in front of the opposite sex (or same sex if gay) shouldn't be something we have control over.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's simply how he argues. Sometimes it only takes a few paragraphs for him to circle back to his "argument" that had already been adequately addressed, where he complains why no one can give him an answer.

That's how EVERYONE who arguees who has a valid point does it. When someone brings up the same tired argument, you bring back the same effective rebuttal. It doesn't stop being effective over time. There isn't a quota on how many times you can rebut irrational claims with an appropriate, rational explanation.

Again, I was happy to debate this in the other thread, and was talking about the matter at hand before there were any "faux humor" hijacks. Proceed....

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why do you keep on insisting on bringing off-topic debates and arguments INTO THIS THREAD? I was happy to talk about Scott Brown and this past week's election.

I'm insisting? Quite the opposite. I'm deferring to the already-existing separate thread on the topic. I'm ready to drop the issue here if you are. No one forced you to respond to my original quip.

I think that the detente was you stopping at your failing in trying to convince everyone that nudity in front of the opposite sex (or same sex if gay) shouldn't be something we have control over.

That's how EVERYONE who arguees who has a valid point does it. When someone brings up the same tired argument, you bring back the same effective rebuttal. It doesn't stop being effective over time. There isn't a quota on how many times you can rebut irrational claims with an appropriate, rational explanation.

I'm confident enough in my argument to let the readers decide who is being irrational. I don't need to go through the same argument, strained analogy by strained analogy (you used the peephole argument there too, remember?) to only make the same points that I would have made before. It would be a giant waste of time, particularly since I have the perfectly viable alternative of referring people to my previous comments on the matter.

Again, I was happy to debate this in the other thread, and was talking about the matter at hand before there were any "faux humor" hijacks. Proceed....

Great, thanks. Then do so.

[ThinkInsane]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, so I'll be more direct: Get back on topic, or your posts get deleted and you start racking up infractions.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Yeah, but if he's buried next to his brothers, I think perhaps it's they who are getting the last laugh, especially JFK, for his positions today would be considered solidly conservative.

I love watching conservatives attempt to claim liberal and moderate Democrats as their own kind. MLK is another one they try to snatch.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I love watching conservatives attempt to claim liberal and moderate Democrats as their own kind. MLK is another one they try to snatch.

JFK was fairly fiscally conservative and cut taxes didn't he? I'm pretty sure that doesn't relate much to current "liberal and moderate democrats" (or some Republicans either actually).

MLK wasn't for quotas, reparations or special entitlements for minorities, was he? I'm pretty sure he consistently backed "color blind" policies where race wasn't an issue pro or con. That's pretty much a Republican stand through and through.

Republicans have always been the party of equality. Just because the Democrats went overboard and did a 360 and instead of fighting the Republicans on fair treatment of minorities, decided to back policies that gave them sometimes unfair and undeserved advantages, doesn't mean they have more in common with folks who have always back fair minded policies in regards to equality.

People get confused and fuzzy on what people actually stand for when they decide that the R or D after their names is the sole means to label them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I realize this is pretty much a geek forum, but does anyone here ever actually hit a gym now and then? If so, do you shower after, or just leave in your usual state of stinky?

I and about 90% of the remainder of members at my gym go home in our usual state of stinky since the extra 10 minutes of "stinky" (after an hour + of it) to shower in the comforts and provisions of our own homes just isn't that odd. The overwhelming majority of members at my gym use the locker rooms... for the lockers. Like any gym, its membership is booked to the hilt and if every single member chose to shower after they worked out, it would in fact be nothing but big open showers where everybody is packed in a mere wiener distance apart from each other.

While I'm not one to argue for DADT because of showering arrangements, I wanted to address the gym locker room analogy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I love watching conservatives attempt to claim liberal and moderate Democrats as their own kind. MLK is another one they try to snatch.

MLK for example wasn't a Democrat of any sort. I love watching liberals claim any virtuous character of history was a liberal or moderate Democrat.

Abraham Lincoln is one they try to snatch.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

MLK for example wasn't a Democrat of any sort.

Are you suggesting MLK's work to end the status quo of racial segregation was conservative?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

JFK was fairly fiscally conservative and cut taxes didn't he? I'm pretty sure that doesn't relate much to current "liberal and moderate democrats" (or some Republicans either actually).

MLK wasn't for quotas, reparations or special entitlements for minorities, was he? I'm pretty sure he consistently backed "color blind" policies where race wasn't an issue pro or con. That's pretty much a Republican stand through and through.

Republicans have always been the party of equality. Just because the Democrats went overboard and did a 360 and instead of fighting the Republicans on fair treatment of minorities, decided to back policies that gave them sometimes unfair and undeserved advantages, doesn't mean they have more in common with folks who have always back fair minded policies in regards to equality.

People get confused and fuzzy on what people actually stand for when they decide that the R or D after their names is the sole means to label them.

Fiscal conservatism isn't the only form of conservatism that defines Republicans. I'm fairly certain that MLK and JFK weren't socially conservative.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you suggesting MLK's work to end the status quo of racial segregation was conservative?

Are you suggesting MLKs notion that a just law is "a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God" and that decisions would one day not be contingent upon the color of one's skin, but the content of their character were liberal doctrines? How about the observance of one researcher regarding King; "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stridently denounced abortion as a form of genocide in many speeches." (Lifelines, Winter 1997, p.14 online)

At the core of his motivation was the ideals of self-empowerment, faith-based association, and self-government founded in the Judeo-Christian heritage dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Of course, profoundly Conservative.

[Wiskedjak]

He was working against traditionalist to change the status quo. By definition, that isn't "conservative".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He was working against traditionalist to change the status quo. By definition, that isn't "conservative".

Are you saying it's impossible to have both liberal and conservative notions? So it would be liberal to oppose the status quo established by Roe V Wade?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you saying it's impossible to have both liberal and conservative notions?

In which case, *neither* side can lay claim MLK or JFK. The change of context offered by a few decades renders any claim of ownership pointless.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

In which case, *neither* side can lay claim MLK or JFK. The change of context offered by a few decades renders any claim of ownership pointless.

I maintain you're employing a rigid definition of Conservatism; one defined only by support or opposition to a status quo.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I maintain you're employing a rigid definition of Conservatism; one defined only by support or opposition to a status quo.

Yup, I'm not denying that.

And, I recognize that things which some people fought to have changed in the past become things that those same types of people want maintained as the new status-quo. Liberals will become conservative as their changes become the new status quo. And, likewise, conservatives will become liberal as they seek to change things to reflect what they perceive to be the desired state.

The best example of this will be when same-sex marriage becomes the new status-quo. Those who fought for it will seek to maintain it, and those who oppose it will seek to change the status-quo to one where same-sex marriage isn't allowed. Liberals will become conservative and conservatives will become liberal.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you saying it's impossible to have both liberal and conservative notions? So it would be liberal to oppose the status quo established by Roe V Wade?

Yes. (Most?) modern Republicans and self-styled conservatives are, in fact, liberal in many of their policies and attitudes, even their most deeply held ones.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As long as people continue to believe that too much freedom is the problem, things will continue to get worse.

Too much freedom isn't the problem. Too much freedom with too little accountability is the problem.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes. (Most?) modern Republicans and self-styled conservatives are, in fact, liberal in many of their policies and attitudes, even their most deeply held ones.

But we were talking about liberals and conservatives. Republicans are certainly capable of liberalism and were promptly removed from office for it. This current Congress is running not to Republicanism, but to Conservatism in order to maintain their seats.

Conservatism itself isn't something that ebbs and flows contingent upon the societal norm of the day. For example, a fiscal conservative will generally advocate a lower tax rate to encourage economic freedom of people while limiting the scope of government in conflict with the status quo of a higher tax rate that traditionally funds more government intrusion. A Conservative is not defined by a status quo.

A social Conservative will oppose Roe V Wade for example because of course the default norm when pregnant is still to have the baby. There are those who would seek to enact government policy to merely ease the symptoms of societal ill, but it is the plight of the Conservative to "rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite."