from crux № 5 - making mistakes
from crux № 20 - guns
“Taylor Woolrich told her story yesterday at the annual conference of Students for Concealed Carry…”I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
I despise guns. I really do.
But I approve of this message.
No matter how I feel about guns, I can't help but notice that the people who obey the gun laws are not the ones we have to worry about. I can't help but notice that the folks making the most noise about gun control are the same ones I wouldn't trust to keep quiet about what anything. And I can't help but notice that the officials, agents, and policemen who proclaim that gun control is absolutely necessary to public safety are the same ones who don't want dash cams or the public recording them on cellphones.
Yes, I approve of this message.
*nods*
I used to be very anti-gun. Not quite out there carrying a sign, but close. Then someone pointed out Cramer’s The Racist Roots of Gun Control and I started looking into it and thinking hard. It was the last bit of libertarianism that I accepted, and the one that was most difficult.
The first time I ever did the reluctant advocate bit was in defense of concealed carry.
That's what started me questioning, but it wasn't where my studies stopped. I finally came up with questions I couldn't answer.
Why should someone who carries a gun decide if other people are allowed to carry? Why does his power trump their rights?
The answer is very simple. In a free society there is no reason.
from crux № 14 — honor
from crux № 17 — spiritual warrior
All I am saying is that you should check your experience with others who have a different perspective, people you can talk with face to face.
Read More...from crux № 21 — American hegemony
In the name of the greater good, the US supported tyranny and dictators all over the globe.
Read More...from crux № 7 — age of consent
I think the age of consent is the best rule anyone has come up with so far.
But let's not kid ourselves.
The whole post WWII extended childhood thing is an artificial American invention.
The biology disagrees.
Before we start talking about the morality, we need to acknowledge that.
If we insist that kids wait until 18, 19, 25, or 37 we need a good reason.
Sometimes the kids do know. Most of the time in fact, if they know they will be held responsible for it.
Sometimes the adults don't know, no matter what the age. Any one going to a bar to hook up isn't being rational.
Sometimes the experience of making mistakes and having to deal with the consequences are the things that make us wise.
I know that for you, marriage and sex should be (ahem) wedded at the hip. I don't think it's a universal one size fits all solution though.
I do like your condition of marriage though.
I wouldn't call it loosening. I would call it changing.
I'd also say that it's necessary. Some of the social mores of the last two centuries needed to be dropped. For example, child labor under terrible conditions and for terrible pay used to be the norm.
The rules that work, we should keep. But you can't do change without testing all the rules constantly.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
from crux № 22 — law did not create civil rights
No law required people to march in protest. No law demanded a sit-in at Woolworth's lunch counter. The changes were happening before the act was passed.
I'd say that in many ways the 1964 act froze that change. People weren't responsible any more, it was government's job. Add a changing civil rights movement leadership that put guilt politics and special privilege over equal rights, and you get one big gooey mess.
It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. Do we still need it because we locked people into a lower social class? When will those who benefit from the 1964 act not need it anymore?
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
from crux № 8 — rights & revised history
Folks probably already know this, but this brand of revisionism uses hard confrontation with constantly escalating stakes. You can't win against it by being loud, that just makes you the closest and biggest target.
There have been many terrible things done in the name of an absolute, "transcendent" morality. Many by Christians. Many by Christians to Christians. And many by Christians to Christians in the last century alone.
A label doesn't define morality. In the words of Mark Twain, "Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often."
I'd rather know what someone has done than what they call themselves.
I have defended rights for homosexuals in comment threads on this site.
I want to make a distinction here. What the radical feminists are "fighting" for are not rights, but exclusive and irrevocable privileges backed by the force of law.
Rights do not emanate from a state, nor do they require state sanction or approval.
Most importantly, it's not a right unless the other guy has it too.
I tell people that I am not for Native American rights, homosexual rights, "black" rights, or women's rights.
I'm for human rights.
And you should be too.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
from crux № 13 — Competiton
Competition drives the free market, to keep customers companies have to make things better than their rivals and better than what they themselves did yesterday.
Competition is what the "single payer" eliminates in the name of efficiency, yet over time competition means that products and services will be better, faster, and cheaper.
There is no incentive to improve under a government controlled system. There is overwhelming incentive to pay off legislators and technocrats for favorable treatment.
I'm usually correct.
Except when I'm wrong… *grins*
Jokes aside, you probably agree with me on economics, smaller government and (most) individual rights. We won't agree on religion, personal morality, and sexuality. I hope we can agree on honor.
I hang out here to keep me honest and so I can see how conservatives think. And occasionally to keep you honest *wink* and keep you from taking yourself too seriously.
I just get very tired of watching people who should know better lump all members of a group into a monolithic block who is out to destroy their way of life and must be Stopped for the Good of Humanity™
The ironic thing is many of the people who complain loudest about it being done to them are only too willing to turn around and do it to someone else.
I've seen pagans do it to Christians, "blacks" do it to "Hispanics," Republicans do it to Democrats, and women doing it to men.
And vice versa.
You know what? It's not the label shouting and doing things, it's the individual person. Until you deal them as individuals rather than as a subset of a label, you have walled yourself off.
Not them. You.
Thinking about it just now, that raises a fascinating question.
Which is worth more, a moral code handed to you or one earned through personal experience?
I'm not asking you to follow my code.
I'm not even asking you to allow me to follow my code.
I'm telling you that I won't follow your code just as you would tell me that you won't follow mine.
Now we could find what we agree on and work from there, or you could spend effort telling me why your enlightenment requires my sacrifice.
I think the former would be more productive, but I would enjoy your frustration at the latter too.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
from crux № 18 — choice and consequence
from crux № 11 — Ultimate truth
❝❝I've seen the arguments in enough other contexts to distrust anyone who claims rationality prevents any opposing view. Even more so when they dismiss any other possibility unheard because they have the Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned.❞❞Read More...
— NeoWayland
from crux № 16 — My beliefs
I want a government that is smaller than absolutely necessary.
I believe that people are perfectly capable of making their own choices and that society is the better if people do exactly that.
I believe that faith and religion can be a tremendous source of individual morality and a dangerous tyranny in society.
There is more but that will do for a start.
And there you go, presuming to speak for the Divine in regards to my fate.
I'm sure that makes you feel important. Worthy. Superior.
Do you think you would take offense if I did the same thing to you?
Or do you think your faith supersedes mine?
Just in case you've forgotten:
It always seems to come down to whose belief comes first, who presumes to speak for the Divine, and what happens when someone disagrees.
I think you're the first one here who asked me what I believe. You deserve a good answer. But this really isn't about me, it's about us finding common ground.
So to start with:
I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to being panetheistic with an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.
====================
My path involves recognizing and celebrating the natural cycles in ourselves, in the world around us, and in the worlds we touch in our dreams. I seek the Divine in human, Nature, and machine. I want to find the synthesis between mankind and ideas, between faith and technology, between what was and what will be.
I believe that all things have a Divine nature. Life is the universe's attempt to understand itself. I know that the totality of the universe is too vast for me to comprehend. So there are godmasks that I turn to for understanding, guidance, and strength when mine is not enough. I know that these godmasks are only representations and gateways to Divinity, not Divinity themselves.
I'll let you in on a secret.
I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.
For life in general, I have three rules.
THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.
THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.
I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.
I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.
Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.
I respectfully disagree with you on that.
There is a technopagan addendum to that.
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
Personally I don't think the two are as far removed as it would seem.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
from crux № 3 — Shame & sex
from crux № 6 — Homosexuality does NOT equal pedophilia
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?
Ah, I see.
Let me look this over. I'm meeting someone for coffee in a bit, and I may not get back to the computer until this afternoon.
One quick thing though, if you don't mind.
Going by the bit you quoted,
86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual
Doesn't that tie into what I said above about using homosexuality as an excuse?
Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia, any more than deer hunting equals school shooting sprees. These are different behaviors, one does not indicate the other. Just because you don't approve of lesbians or pedophiles doesn't mean they are one and the same. Just as not every straight man is a rapist, or every Republican racist.
That doesn't mean that there aren't child molesters using homosexuality as an excuse.
I'll stand with you against sex with kids. But until and unless you can show that every homosexual (or even most homosexuals) target kids, I'll tell you that lumping all gays in with the child molesters is wrong.
Should I tell you the things I have seen passed off as the Republican agenda or the Christian agenda?
Do you have any idea the things that are regularly attributed to these groups? The hateful accusations that always seem to end with the downfall of freedom and the enslavement of humanity?
I will tell you what I've told the accusers in other forums.
Show me where everyone or even a simple majority has signed off on this agenda, and I'll look at your accusations again.
p.s. It was done better in The Protocols of Zion. And I didn't believe that one for an instant.
"No one is claiming every person with a homosexual problem target kids. Many target adults for sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior, disease spreading, domestic violence, porn, prostitution and murder."
One paragraph and you accuse all homosexuals of Horrors Too Terrible To Mention™. According to you if they don't target kids, they do something else wrong to other people because that is what homosexuals do. If someone can't see it, that someone must dig just a little harder because something ghastly will surely turn up. And if that doesn't work, why, you'll invent something.
There is still not much point in talking to you about it, is there?
You really do like to overcomplicate things.
Are there pedophiles who are not homosexual?
Yes.
Are there homosexuals who are not pedophiles?
Yes.
Therefore, homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.
Now, shall we discuss your obsessions?
It's not all "queers."
Any more than the exploits of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy make all men serial killers.
The individual is guilty, not the group.
A very wise man said "You can't childproof the world. The best you can do is world proof your children."
No, it doesn't.
First, lesbians aren't male and aren't banging boys.
Second, most homosexual men aren't banging boys either.
No, not really.
For example, if I were to point out (again) that homosexuality does not mean pedophilia, several folks here would chime in that I was all for sex with children.
In another place, if I were to disagree (again) with the notion that Christians should be locked away on general principle, several folks there would chime in that I was all for religious oppression.
The biggest and hardest lesson that I've had to learn is that no one group has THE answer, and no group that says it has THE answer can be fully trusted.
You know, people keep acting as if there were some sort of golden age where adults didn't sexually molest children.
Guess what? It happened twenty years ago, it happened forty years ago, it happened sixty years ago, and it happened eighty years ago.
It is not something new, not some sign of the times, not some terrible symptom of a philosophy you do not agree with.
Now, you can spend time lamenting for a time that never was, denouncing all life paths you don't follow, or you can do something today.
If you want to denounce libertarianism for "enabling" behavior you don't like, how is that different from the progressives denouncing conservatives for behavior they don't like?
That's not the question and you know it.
Look, it's very simple. I stand for the rights of the individual. He's not guilty because of skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, or net worth.
A person is guilty because of what he has done.
Not because a given label has this "tendency" or because the "common wisdom" says that "his kind" does that sort of thing. That's what progressives do. They do proclaim guilt based on skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, and net worth.
And yet we still have innocent people accused of crimes because you don't approve of their life style.
It's not because they have committed a crime, it's because you think there is an outside chance that they may.
You seem to think I am defending homosexuality. I'm not.
I'm taking a stand against slander. Well, technically in this case it's libel. Let's settle for defamation.
Prove that every homosexual is a pedophile. Prove that every pedophile is a homosexual.
If you can't do that, then the rule of law has no meaning.
It's not moral equivalence.
It's a matter of injustice to claim people are guilty before they've committed a crime just because of a label.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If you can't show that every gay is a pedophile, then you have no authority to treat them as if they were guilty.
Anymore than the RadFems have to the authority to treat every man as a rapist.
The percentages don't matter.
All that matters here is that someone can be gay without being a pedophile and someone can be a pedophile without being a gay.
That means that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. People can be one or the other but not both.
ETA: That last sentence is missing a word. It should be
"People can be one or the other but not necessarily both."
Sometimes my fingers don't work. Sorry.
Again, if there are homosexuals who are not pedophiles and pedophiles who are not homosexuals, that's beside the point.
Do all Baptists eat chicken? Are there non-Baptists who eat chicken? Is chicken uniquely Baptist?
That's the same silly game that you're playing.
You don't like homosexuals. I understand that. But if you "associate" them with a crime BECAUSE they are homosexual, you do no honor to yourself or your cause.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.