NeoNotes - Smear
❝❝Pardon, but why should they feel shame?
Are they not freely consenting adults?
It doesn't look like they are cheating on spouses or significant others. It doesn't look like someone is using theft or fraud.
It's not really all that different from what's been going on for ages.
What next? Will you forbid single teachers from dating?
Do you want ankle monitors so you can make sure they don't stray?
Shall we restrict them to dorms so we can watch them even closer?
Maybe the dorms should have nice strong steel doors and bars on the windows…
So it's okay for the woman to sleep with who she is dating, just not if she accepts payment?
So much for a dinner date.
But how many of the couples from SeekingArrangement.com have someone leaving a c-note on the nightstand?
On the other hand, there are plenty of "virtuous and moral" people who do exactly that.
If you really want to tout the virtues of a "public indoctrination system" I won't stop you.
It doesn't have much to do with freedom or liberty though.
“Virtuous and moral" were your terms, not mine. The first thing that popped into my head when I read that was that old footage of Jimmy Swaggert proclaiming "I have sinned against you…"
Oddly enough, the most moral people I know of don't have to brag about it.
You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution. The DOI was intended to show the moral case for revolution, while the Constitution is supposed to be the basis of government.
Neither mentions anything remotely close to a "public indoctrination system." That pretty much HAS to come from a "government lackey" or "central committee." It still has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.
You really like that smear word, don't you?
It's open ended, so you can use it to quash debate whenever you want.
Except you can't.
How are these people perverted again?
Smear words are used to quash dissent. It works, unless someone questions it.
I meant the people in the original article. You know, the ones you called perverted, and then tried to link to sexual practices that you find even more repugnant.
Just so no one would question your original allegation.
Nope, that isn't what I said.
Look again. What I said is that if they have sex after a dinner date, that's prostitution by this definition.
Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?
Personally I think it's immoral to convict an individual when they haven't committed a crime because of how you disapprove of their off-time.
"For the children" justifies some immoral behavior.
If you can't show that all teachers molest their students, or that all schools have conspired to hide that from parents, then maybe you shouldn't make blanket accusations.
I didn't say "blanket statement," I said blanket accusations.
You've gone from consenting adults to molesting kids.
More directly, I haven't said anything about changing the law.
What I have said is what people do in their off time is nobody else's business. I did throw in some obvious bits: consenting adults, no cheating on significant others, no theft, no fraud.
If this is you taunting, you need some practice.
Would you like some pointers?
Of course sexuality and relationships are important. I never said they weren't.
Again, I stressed:
• Consenting adults
• No cheating on significant others
• No theft
• No fraud
Those are pretty good rules no matter how a relationship starts.
The people using the service were just a lot more upfront than most folks these days.
Of course sexuality and relationships between consenting adults ARE NOT society's business.
Do you get a list of officially sanctioned positions and techniques from the Federal government?
Do you get a list of eligible candidates from your city elders?
Do you file for permission from your state before intercourse?
Please stop trying to put words in my posts that aren't there.
I never said lack of harm. I've also never said that people should escape responsibility for their actions.
Guess what. That's any activity, not just sex. Freedom to choose means responsibility for the results.
And in case you haven't noticed, I abhor the word "pervert." I've seen it destroy innocent lives way too often.
I don't believe you should police people's sex lives. I don't think you should police people's lives, period. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be accountable for what they do, I just think the costs of tyranny far outweigh the illusion of safety.
Well, I'll give you this much, you're persistent.
Look again at the original article that began this thread. It was about people selecting companions and partners in an unorthodox way.
Not illegal, but unusual.
There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.
To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.
Would you accept them passing judgement on you?
Obviously not, from your response to me. And all I've done is defend their right to make their own choices.
You don't know the relationships are harmful. That's another pretty vague word.
If "dysfunctional" and "parasitic" are your standards, you'll have to tell a lot of Americans they aren't allowed to have relationships anymore. Ah, look at all the lonely people…
And now I'm a "pervert," even though you know next to nothing about me. Are you sure you don't want to take another look at that working definition?
I think that people are accountable to themselves and those whose lives they share.
It's not a valid premise.
It's like asking me what food is kosher to me when I am not Jewish.
I abhor the word. I've seen it abused to many times. I prefer not to use it.
How many times can I say the same thing?
No, I have pointed out that you keep using and changing your definition of a slur word. You still haven't shown how the people in the original article have done anything except use an unusual method to pick a bed partner.
For that you've condemned them.
The really sad thing is that you don't see anything wrong with that.
And there is that smear word again.
For many readers of this site, the working definition seems to be "whatever goes against my stated morality when it is convenient."
This week it's me. In an earlier decade it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Elvis Presley. Or the writings of Walt Whitman. Or the notion that all men (and women) are created equal.
Except you keep proving my working definition for me.
See, you can tell me what you think the definition is.
Or I could watch and see how you use it. That's why I said working definition.
Please prove me wrong.
I said in an earlier decade, it might have been Italian or Irish immigrants. Or the music of Presley, the writings of Whitman, or the notion that all men are created equal.
I added women in parentheses because I thought the statement should be qualified here.
My point is that every one of those things was considered perverted. You don't even want to know what was written about Irish and Italian immigrants, some of it actually makes the Westboro Baptist Church seem classy.
No, what I did was show what was "perverted" is not necessarily what is "perverted" today.
I've shown that your slur word is just that, a slur word whose meaning changes with time and is routinely applied to anyone you might not agree with.
Frankly, I try not to use that word. Unless there is harm other than some ever-changing moral standard, it's not my business to know what my neighbor does in his house, anymore than it's his business what I think of sushi and motorcycles.
Except your definition keeps expanding.
You don't know the people who the article describes, yet you link them to homosexuals and pedophiles. And then you called me perverted.
I certainly disagree with you, but you would be hard pressed to show anything else.
I'm defending the right of people to make their own choices without society policing them for the "greater good."
If you take a harder look, you'll see that what the women in the article have done isn't all that far removed from what some ladies have done for centuries. It's part of civilization.
It also isn't all that different from what goes on in American society today. The only reason that the article was written was because some of the women were public school teachers.
Which means that you think people should have fewer rights if they have certain jobs.
You should think really hard about that.
Small "l" libertarian, well, yep, that's me. As far as it goes anyway.
Funny though how no one else has pointed out the obvious. If it were any profession besides teaching, there would be no story.
It's nobody else's business what someone does in their off time. You wouldn't stand for it if someone was talking about controlling your behavior "for the children."
That's today's quick definition of liberty, folks. It's not a right unless the other guy has it too.❞❞
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.