Lost in translation. Americans vs the rest of us [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 12:41 PM

I meant this poll to be about presvationists, not your average slob. Unfortunatly I can't edit it

I think the difference is more between Germanic (capitalist) and non-Germanic (more socialist) nationalist. The Germanic nationalist parties with the most support tend to be capitalist, like the Vlaams Belang (Flanders, Belgium), Geert Wilders, Danish Peoples' Party, Swiss Peoples' Party, Austrian Freedom Party, and Norway Progress Party. You could probably even add Italy's Northern League into this. The exceptions to this are Germany's NPD (economically left wing, and not very successful) and Britain's BNP (economically centrist, had some marginal success for a time period).

The celtic (Sinn Fein, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru), Slavic, and Romance nations along with Greece seem to have national-socialist type parties.

I think a lot has to do with the Anglos/Germanics being on top in the prior existing power structure, thus supporting capitalism, whereas others like the Scots and Poles have sort of a colonial mentality in which they see themselves as historically 'oppressed'.

Sahson

09-29-2011, 01:06 PM

"The former British Prime Minister Harold McMillan was once asked by a journalist about what he as a politician feared the most, and he replied. "Events dear boy, events." And he was 100% right." - Earl of Dartmouth

Absinthe

09-29-2011, 01:08 PM

Ultimately it is multinational corporations from America that are the greatest threat to European culture.

Finally, a sane opinion. Globalization of the economy is the main (if not the only) cause for mass immigration and multiculturalism. If not for the greed for cheaper labour and expanding markets, of a handful of corporations that control the economy, most of the third-worlders that have swarm our countries would have stayed put as there would be nothing for them to do here.

People who touch upon the capitalist/communist dilemma on a simplistic way fail to grasp that capitalism is no more about "the free market" and "equal opportunities for everyone".
It has evolved into a voracious monster that will not stop until the last piece of land and oxygen has been turned into money. It's destroying the natural and human biodiversity en masse.

Much of what you loathe and call "leftism", Magister, is actually extreme capitalism and neo-liberalism. All ethics and values are being sacrificed in the altar of money, same goes for human races and cultures. The fact that the world is now one huge f**-up melting pot has more to do with corporate greed and market interests, than with "leftism" or "cultural marxism"
In fact, I believe the latter are being pushed forward exactly by the very same people who control the markets.

"The ruling class controls the ruling ideas" - there, even Marx had said it ;)

On the other hand, international communism remains a tremendous threat to all the West

Really?! :eek: I was under the impression that "international communism" has failed miserably and hence now it survives only in some God-forsaken lands such as N.Korea. Everywhere else it has been implemented, not only it is now loathed by the people who were under its rule, but also those countries are now adapting a much more aggressive form of capitalism, than their capitalist opponents ;) See Russia and China for example.

So how does it constitute a threat, let alone a tremendous one? :confused:

but since America is the originator and not the victim of international capitalism, they tend not to see the mercantile thinking of capitalism as being as dangerous as the cultural Marxism spread by communists.

Very very very true (the first part of your sentence), however they (you?) also fail to grasp that, in essence, capitalism and cultural marxism are the very two sides of the same coin.

Have you seen any communist state being ethically liberal, tolerant with minorities, promoting multiculturalism and immigration (lol, all of them had sealed borders that they guarded like a treasure), etc, etc?
They were quite the opposite! :coffee:
And where does this wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality come from, and still is more prevalent? USA, the birthplace of capitalism! :lightbul:
And where are the multiculturalist "leftist" and liberalist ideas stronger and most established at?
The countries within the sphere of influence of the U.S. of A.! :lightbul:

Go to Eastern Europe, for example, and see how they feel about multiculturalism. They would probably chop off your head for even asking the question. :cool:

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 01:37 PM

If not for the greed for cheaper labour and expanding markets, of a handful of corporations that control the economy, most of the third-worlders that have swarm our countries would have stayed put as there would be nothing for them to do here.

What about collecting welfare and committing crimes?

Really?! :eek: I was under the impression that "international communism" has failed miserably and hence now it survives only in some God-forsaken lands such as N.Korea.

And the US White House. But more seriously, most European countries maintain a strong 'socialist'/''social democratic' party, plus relatively strong far left parties such as 'Green' parties and openly communist parties like Die Linke in Germany.

Have you seen any communist state being ethically liberal, tolerant with minorities, promoting multiculturalism and immigration (lol, all of them had sealed borders that they guarded like a treasure), etc, etc?

Mostly they are afraid of people leaving. Not too many people want to move to those places, since they are super poor.

And where does this wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality come from, and still is more prevalent? USA

Not really, '68 revolution was much more powerful in continental Europe, plus you have France as the origin of this wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality.

I've posted in other threads which I can repost here if anyone forgot or has not seen, US Supreme Court cases pushing wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality by using 'world (European) opinion', also the European notion of individualism is wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality vs the American notion of individualism is the right to threaten someone with a gun to get off your yard.

USA, the birthplace of capitalism!

Britain is pretty widely recognized as the birthplace of modern 'capitalism as an ideology', Adam Smith and all that. Britain & former British colonies which are White or Asian are the most capitalist countries in the world, as a group. However, amongst this group, the US is the least capitalist of the bunch after the UK. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland are all more capitalist than the US as show in this study:

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

And where are the multiculturalist "leftist" and liberalist ideas stronger and most established at?
The countries within the sphere of influence of the U.S. of A.! :lightbul:

Not really. Continental Europe, mainly. For an example, see this here list of countries which have laws against 'holocaust denial': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_holocaust_denial

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 01:46 PM

Anti-Americanism is the last great stupidity with mainstream support, but as it has mainstream support idiots are emboldened to engage in it.

Its vanguard though are the usual suspects - radical socialists, Nazis, and Third World troglodytes.

Or just people fed up with incompetent US foreign policy, mindless consumerism, crassness and arrogance. ;)

Absinthe

09-29-2011, 01:49 PM

I don't have time to reply in length as I need to leave very soon.

Britain is pretty widely recognized as the birthplace of modern 'capitalism as an ideology', Adam Smith and all that.

America was built almost exclusively on British (or WASP) values and doctrines, was it not? In fact I think it was America that was used as experimental territory for a lot of capitalist endeavours.

Not really, '68 revolution was much more powerful in continental Europe, plus you have France as the origin of this wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality.

France, the French Revolution, wasn't it a big influence for American Revolution as well? The constitution of human rights, equality, etc.... I don't have time to expand but I think that many of the ideals of the Enlightenment movement where either flawed to begin with, or have been twisted across time in order to promote more agendas.

most European countries maintain a strong 'socialist'/''social democratic' party, plus relatively strong far left parties such as 'Green' parties and openly communist parties like Die Linke in Germany.

The Western European countries that are under the influence of NATO and the American sphere.

In Eastern Europe and the Balkans, e.g. we are still crude, beastly brutes (although that is unfortunately changing) that are openly intolerant and racist, and very unsympathetic towards human rights, minority rights, and so on and so forth. It's the law of the jungle here.
But it seems for you (Americans) Europe is Western Europe alone, everything else is terra incognita. :p

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 01:51 PM

Another example of a difference is scandinavia and australia. We import 'skilled migrants'. Scandinavia imports refugees. That is, scandinava's immigration is based on compassion, our's is based on money and basically avoiding machete wielding criminals.

Not really. Both Norway, Denmark and Sweden accept both skilled labour and refugees. Besides, every country is obligated to take in a quota of refugees. Personally, I don't agree with it, but what can you do?

Pallantides

09-29-2011, 02:01 PM

I really gave the arse of this thread a good pounding.

It was supposed to be about the difference in america and everywhere else.

Another example of a difference is scandinavia and australia. We import 'skilled migrants'. Scandinavia imports refugees. That is, scandinava's immigration is based on compassion, our's is based on money and basically avoiding machete wielding criminals.

My op and poll were crap obviously, because noone understood me. oh well.

Yeah we have about 34.108 Swedish and 24.394 German refugees in Norway:coffee:

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 02:19 PM

But more seriously, most European countries maintain a strong 'socialist'/''social democratic' party, plus relatively strong far left parties such as 'Green' parties and openly communist parties like Die Linke in Germany.

Yes, it's called democracy and free speech. Unlike the USA, where you're forced to choose one of two options (the Independents don't count), in European countries you have a choice. Communist parties, however, are marginal in European countries, and socialist parties only slightly less marginal, so this is not some vast communist threat. :rolleyes:

I've posted in other threads which I can repost here if anyone forgot or has not seen, US Supreme Court cases pushing wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality by using 'world (European) opinion', also the European notion of individualism is wishy-washy, hippie multi-culti mentality vs the American notion of individualism is the right to threaten someone with a gun to get off your yard.

Examples? In the US, you're terrified of nudity but you worship violence. A nipple can cause hysteria and is promptly censored, while violence is celebrated and seen as something natural. I don't see the censorship of nudity as a celebration of individuality. The same goes for the American hysteria concerning bad language, which is censored as well. Let's not forget how your government tells you where you can and can't travel (Cuba). How's that for individuality? And when you do travel somewhere, you get harassed by TSA agents in your own country.

Here in Norway I can own a weapon for hunting or to go to a marksman club, but I can also see nudity on TV, curse words are uncensored and I can travel directly to Cuba if I want to, and without TSA agents harassing me at the airport. Indeed, I can deny the Holocaust if I want to as well.

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 02:48 PM

America was built almost exclusively on British (or WASP) values and doctrines, was it not? In fact I think it was America that was used as experimental territory for a lot of capitalist endeavours.

Sure was. Just pointing out that every other white & Asian former colony of Britain is today more capitalist than the US or UK.

France, the French Revolution, wasn't it a big influence for American Revolution as well? The constitution of human rights, equality, etc

Not really. American Revolution was an oblique influence on the French Revolution in terms of showing that a monarchy was not needed for a country. The French monarchy was headed for a downfall at any rate, being at or near the top of corrupt, degenerate, and incompetent monarchies.

The US Constitution is mainly about limiting the federal government from interfering in the activities of the individual and local governments. Mainly personal property rights and protections from any sort of government influence on the rights of people. On the other hand, the French and western European concepts were much more oriented on mandating social equality, 'human rights', etc.

This is probably the best article explaining the difference:

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/246.pdf

To summarize: 2 fags are buttfucking in a public park, and a dude comes by, takes a photo, and posts it on the internet.

In Europe, the photographer has violated the human rights of the fags, violated their humanity and privacy and dignity and all that, and has no right to publish their photo without their permission. In doing so he can be liable for civil and even criminal penalties.

In America: Dude owns the camera. Therefore, dude owns any pictures he takes with it. Therefore, he can do whatever he wants with these pictures, including post them on the internet for all to see, and the fags can't do a damn thing about it. Cuz the dude owns the pictures.

The Western European countries that are under the influence of NATO and the American sphere.

NATO was originally created as a way for the US to protect European countries from USSR military takeover. The past decade or two, it's been a combination of EU military (used to take out 'nasty human rights abusers' like Milosevic and Ghadaddi) and source of backfill troops for the US in Afghanistan, much the same way as the Germans used Hungarian, Romanian, etc troops in WWII.

But to prove that hypothesis, you'd need a list of cases whereby these countries adopt liberal policies in order to be more in line with the US. Instead, we have the opposite. Europe got rid of the death penalty and legalized homosexuality long ago, so the US has to do it as well, according to our courts who cite 'world opinion' (unfortunately, they never give equal credence to emerging countries like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia).

Besides, every country is obligated to take in a quota of refugees.

Says who? You're not even in the EU.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_percap-immigration-refugees-per-capita

Germany, Austria, Norway, and the Netherlands are at the top of the list for European countries when it comes to 'refugees per capita'. The US is not even on the list. 'Refugees' are quite rare here and 'asylum seekers' pretty much not allowed.

Oreka Bailoak

09-29-2011, 02:50 PM

Globalization of the economy is the main (if not the only) cause for mass immigration and multiculturalism. If not for the greed for cheaper labour and expanding markets, of a handful of corporations that control the economy, most of the third-worlders that have swarm our countries would have stayed put as there would be nothing for them to do here.
It's not the multinationals job to sustain a nations culture, and native population level. That is the job of the government.

Very very very true (the first part of your sentence), however they (you?) also fail to grasp that, in essence, capitalism and cultural marxism are the very two sides of the same coin.
There are countries that exist in the world today, that are not only built around capitalistic ideas but also don't have cultural marxism. Japan, Korea, Singapore, and many countries of the past, like old America, old Britain.

The difference comes down to a change in the beliefs of the population within the country. An indifference, in both the government and the populace.

It might not be as Romantic as attacking Capitalism but at least it's the truth.

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 03:16 PM

1488[/I]]Yes, it's called democracy and free speech. Unlike the USA, where you're forced to choose one of two options (the Independents don't count), in European countries you have a choice. Communist parties, however, are marginal in European countries, and socialist parties only slightly less marginal, so this is not some vast communist threat. :rolleyes:

That doesn't have anything to do with individualism, globalism, etc. It's an effect of the separate strong executive branch, lack of proportional representation, and that parties here a semi-public entity rather than membership clubs. Socialists and even communists are in the Democrat Party, and a variety of 'right wing extremists' are in the Republican Party. Basically, they just form coalitions here before the election rather than after. I can't see how this relates to the discussion of individuality, capitalism, etc.

1488[/I]]Examples? In the US, you're terrified of nudity...the same goes for the American hysteria concerning bad language, which is censored as well.

Both are fully legal in private venues. The only 'censorship' actually arises from a 'socialist' source, the broadcast television and radio bans nudity and foul language because it's "The public airwaves"

1488[/I]]Let's not forget how your government tells you where you can and can't travel (Cuba). How's that for individuality?

So is Norway 'more capitalist' than America? Where are we going with this?

1488[/I]]And when you do travel somewhere, you get harassed by TSA agents in your own country.

Quite obnoxious to be sure, but an invention of the past decade. Is law enforcement in European countries allowed to 'racially profile'? That's why we have all this TSA crap, is we aren't allowed to racially profile and pick out the Muslims for questioning.

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 03:55 PM

In Europe, the photographer has violated the human rights of the fags, violated their humanity and privacy and dignity and all that, and has no right to publish their photo without their permission. In doing so he can be liable for civil and even criminal penalties.

In America: Dude owns the camera. Therefore, dude owns any pictures he takes with it. Therefore, he can do whatever he wants with these pictures, including post them on the internet for all to see, and the fags can't do a damn thing about it. Cuz the dude owns the pictures.

Exactly, and in the US you don't value privacy since it's a matter of the public. For instance, in the USA you believe your government should legislate what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom, going so far as to ban certain sexual positions (missionary seems to be the only "legal" position in all States), whereas in civilised European countries we consider what goes on in the privacy of your own home to be nobody's damn business.

As for people taking pictures in public, again it's a matter of privacy and the freedom of the individual to remain anonymous. In the USA you worship vulgar displays of exhibitionism, and you don't seem concerned with matters or privacy and anonymity. The NSA can monitor your phone calls and the Patriot Act makes it clear that you have to give up a blood sample if a federal agent commands you to. In civilised European countries, monitoring phone calls or demanding blood samples from regular citizens is illegal. The draconian US proposal to monitor all traffic over the Internet, is a hotly debated subject in civilised European countries and would be considered illegal in my country, Norway.

Obviously, since Americans are used to having their privacy and their rights violated, they don't understand (as you've illustrated) why we in civilised European countries want to keep our privacy. While you in the USA have an epidemic of identity theft and federal agents groping your groins, there'd be protestors out on the streets if Norway implemented the draconian laws the USA has.

NATO was originally created as a way for the US to protect European countries from USSR military takeover. The past decade or two, it's been a combination of EU military (used to take out 'nasty human rights abusers' like Milosevic and Ghadaddi) and source of backfill troops for the US in Afghanistan, much the same way as the Germans used Hungarian, Romanian, etc troops in WWII.

Actually, NATO was established as a mutual alliance that benefited both the USA and Western Europe.

Says who? You're not even in the EU.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_percap-immigration-refugees-per-capita

Germany, Austria, Norway, and the Netherlands are at the top of the list for European countries when it comes to 'refugees per capita'. The US is not even on the list. 'Refugees' are quite rare here and 'asylum seekers' pretty much not allowed.

It's got nothing to do with the EU. The quotas are set up due to us - as practically all other nations on Earth - being signatories to a UN resolution on refugees.

As for refugees/asylum seekers, a lot of them come here thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which your country is responsible for. Anyway, the largest group of immigrants coming into Norway now are Poles.

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 04:06 PM

That doesn't have anything to do with individualism, globalism, etc. It's an effect of the separate strong executive branch, lack of proportional representation, and that parties here a semi-public entity rather than membership clubs. Socialists and even communists are in the Democrat Party, and a variety of 'right wing extremists' are in the Republican Party. Basically, they just form coalitions here before the election rather than after. I can't see how this relates to the discussion of individuality, capitalism, etc.

There's nothing communist or socialist about the Democratic Party. :rolleyes:

Both are fully legal in private venues. The only 'censorship' actually arises from a 'socialist' source, the broadcast television and radio bans nudity and foul language because it's "The public airwaves"

Funny, it's always been right-wingers trying to censor artists and the like, like in the case of rock music, which was accused of being the devil's music and was also accused of causing suicides. Back in the 50's right-wingers held trials because people held different political views and opinions than what was the "standard". Free speech was illegal, and actors, politicians etc. were sentenced to jail for holding "communist" beliefs.

So is Norway 'more capitalist' than America? Where are we going with this?

No, but your assertion was basically that we're not free in European countries, which I've countered with some examples where many European countries are more free than the USA.

Quite obnoxious to be sure, but an invention of the past decade. Is law enforcement in European countries allowed to 'racially profile'? That's why we have all this TSA crap, is we aren't allowed to racially profile and pick out the Muslims for questioning.

I don't know about racial profiling in all European countries so I can't answer your question, but I do know that Britain has a separate police task force dedicated solely to combating black crime, called Trident.

Magister Eckhart

09-29-2011, 04:52 PM

Really?! :eek: I was under the impression that "international communism" has failed miserably and hence now it survives only in some God-forsaken lands such as N.Korea.

Nationalised communism with a state only exists in places like North Korea, but international communism thrives everywhere there is a Communist party and Communist agents to encourage the breakdown of our society and our civilisation. Cultural Marxism was and is spread by communists, with or without a state, and the growth of socialism, itself a destructive system (the communists know this, for they consider it to be flawed and watered-down communism that will never work) is the direct result of communist urgings and the inherent flaws to the capitalist system that gave birth to and nurtured communism.

capitalism and cultural marxism are the very two sides of the same coin.

I never said differently; rather, that was rather the whole point of my posting. Liberalism is the blanket terminology that encompasses all these forms of thought that elevate material above the spirit.

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 06:16 PM

There's nothing communist or socialist about the Democratic Party. :rolleyes:

You might as well say "there's nothing capitalist or free market about the Republican Party" because George Bush supported bailouts. Fact of the matter is, most socialists are in the Democratic Party and most capitalists are in the Republican Party. Other possibility is your country is so far to the left that it doesn't matter, which reinforces my initial point in this thread that western Europe is far to the left of the rest of the world.

Funny, it's always been right-wingers trying to censor artists and the like, like in the case of rock music

Up until the 60s or so. Ancient history. Starting in the 90s, it was the left led by Tipper Gore (wife of the Vice President) trying to censor music etc.

No, but your assertion was basically that we're not free in European countries

My main assertion, in response to the initial question, is that American style capitalism and individual rights, mostly centered on property rights, does not necessarily lead to social chaos, as in Europe which has 'social freedoms' as the centerpiece for people to run around and do whatever without police interference.

The main claim here is that 'capitalism' damages social cohesion by inevitably promoting left wing social values and civil rights causes, my argument is that it does not, that it is possible to have a capitalist society which does not allow for rampant nudity & sex in public, on public media, etc and so on.

Turkey

09-29-2011, 06:33 PM

This is exactly what this thread was meant to be about! We can see the divide in world views right here. There must be some reason why Americans can't see that the reason for immigration capitalism.

Maybe it isn't there?

It sure is here. They use boat people as target practice here.

Then they let them in. more cheap labour for the capitalists.

:confused:

Hevneren

09-29-2011, 06:34 PM

My main assertion, in response to the initial question, is that American style capitalism and individual rights, mostly centered on property rights, does not necessarily lead to social chaos, as in Europe which has 'social freedoms' as the centerpiece for people to run around and do whatever without police interference.

The main claim here is that 'capitalism' damages social cohesion by inevitably promoting left wing social values and civil rights causes, my argument is that it does not, that it is possible to have a capitalist society which does not allow for rampant nudity & sex in public, on public media, etc and so on.

What social chaos does the freedom have sex in whatever position you want, within your own home, lead to? How about the right to privacy? What are the negative implications of privacy? Indeed, how does not censoring nudity or curse words on programmes meant for adults lead to chaos? Are you suggesting that Americans are too fragile to even endure a naked nipple, before going apeshit? If so, that says far more about the fragile mental state (not to forget frigidity and rampant puritanism) of people in the USA, than it does about the validity of your claims.

No, you can't "legislate away" ideas, mental states and natural instincts. If you believe the answer to stopping humans from creating chaos is to take away their freedoms, you're going about things the wrong way. Remember the Prohibition Era in the USA? Do you know what happened after prostitution was made illegal (brothels used to be legal)?

The funny thing about your arguments is that despite all the moral hysteria in the USA, despite all the censorship and all the moral two-facedness, the USA is still the no. 1 porn capital of the world, you have the highest homicide rate in the West, the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the industrialised world, divorce rates well above many other industrialised countries, and Catholic priests in the USA alone have had to pay 600 million dollars in compensation for all the little boys who've been raped or otherwise sexually abused by these "moral" priests. It just goes to show how hypocritical, two-faced and down-right rotten your society is.

Turkey

09-29-2011, 06:42 PM

Are you suggesting that Americans are too fragile to even endure a naked nipple, before going apeshit?

Only if they are African-american.:)

SwordoftheVistula

09-29-2011, 07:21 PM

the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words

Well, you can take that up with the people who object to such things. I am actually an atheist and libertarian,and am not bothered by such things, but pointing out some common misconceptions for the sake of historical accuracy.

See, the way many people in Europe on 'the right' think is thus:

"the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words" is bad

"the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words...allow mass waves of immigrants into the country" is a direct result of capitalism and its emphasis on 'individualism'

"The United States is the primary promoter of capitalism and individualism"

"The Unites States, through NATO, has brought "the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words...allow mass waves of immigrants into the country" to European countries and imposed it on them by force in the post-WWII social order"

My contention, based on various readings, is that:

1. The western European demand for "the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words...allow mass waves of immigrants into the country" is something indigenously generated, and not forcibly imposed by the US via NATO.

2. A capitalist economy does not necessarily mandate a socially liberal country, as evidenced by the generally religious/conservative nature of the US and the tendency of socialist countries to extoll the 'virtues' of "the freedom have sex in whatever position you want...the right to privacy...nudity or curse words...allow mass waves of immigrants into the country"

Sahson

09-30-2011, 07:04 AM

I have to say, I understand why Europeans love their welfare state, because one stage I was one of those people. I thought the government could do a lot more as well.

However the dogma of equality is probably the greatest fallacy of all time. to think that we are equals is to assume that we are all the same, that we all have the same attributes and qualities as the individual next to us, when indeed that is seldom the case.

“I have no respect for the passion for equality, which seems to me merely idealising envy.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

And what a bright chap he was. Equality does not make people happy, nor satisfied with one's life. People can be equal in their right to schooling, healthcare, welfare, and so forth, but alas they might not be treated equally in the small person-to-person society.

One will find the individual will flourish better when they are being treated equally in the small person-to-person society, than having equal rights. Material wealth, and acquisition is of lesser importance when individuals are respected and treated equally in the small society and under the court of law.

and there is a difference.

On another note this altruistic behaviour that Europe has adopted is now biting them back in times of peril. All theories pointed out this would be a problem and now it is. The governments are broke, the crowding out of markets like healthcare, and education has prevented the growth of job opportunities and business that the government could have taxed. instead the government uses taxed money to prop the healthcare system up. It was stated a few weeks ago that NHS employs something like 1.4 million, and some of these are 6 digit paid surgeons, who own Ferrari's - that are being payed out of the taxpayer's expense.

And people wonder why the economy can't pick up, because these surgeons income comes from tax payers only a little of their money goes back to government.

Joe McCarthy

09-30-2011, 07:29 AM

Turkey

09-30-2011, 08:03 AM

Hevneren

09-30-2011, 08:19 AM

If the criticism of the US is that we're not socialist enough, or not sexually liberal enough - and it very often is - I'll proudly take those 'faults' with honors, though from my perspective America is a moral sewer, albeit less so than most of Europe or the West.

Funny, I feel the same way about the USA. Sky-high teenage pregnancy rates, sky-high homicide rates, high divorce rates, two-facedness with regard to sexuality etc. The USA is a cesspool from where I stand.

SwordoftheVistula

09-30-2011, 10:35 AM

Sky-high teenage pregnancy rates, sky-high homicide rates

Teen pregnancy is mainly hispanics, and homicide is mainly blacks. In both cases, the white rate is a fraction thereof.

Joe McCarthy

09-30-2011, 10:42 AM

Funny, I feel the same way about the USA. Sky-high teenage pregnancy rates, sky-high homicide rates, high divorce rates, two-facedness with regard to sexuality etc. The USA is a cesspool from where I stand.

I'm sure you do think that about us. We are the USA, after all. Fortunately you rarely have to worry about us thinking that way about your country, as you're in Norway.

Pallantides

09-30-2011, 11:43 AM

I'm sure you do think that about us. We are the USA, after all. Fortunately you rarely have to worry about us thinking that way about your country, as you're in Norway the greatest country in the world.

fixed. :D

Hevneren

09-30-2011, 11:52 AM

I'm sure you do think that about us. We are the USA, after all. Fortunately you rarely have to worry about us thinking that way about your country, as you're in Norway.

No need to act butthurt. With your failing economy and unpopular foreign policy, you might one day lose your position, so don't worry. :thumb001:

Joe McCarthy

09-30-2011, 12:07 PM

No need to act butthurt. With your failing economy and unpopular foreign policy, you might one day lose your position, so don't worry. :thumb001:

Say hello to what will replace us at the top:

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100541940/red-dragon-rising-communist-chinas-military-threat-america-edward-timperlake-paperback-cover-art.jpg

Sahson

09-30-2011, 12:30 PM

xvz8tg4MVpA

rhiannon

09-30-2011, 01:07 PM

Exactly, and in the US you don't value privacy since it's a matter of the public. For instance, in the USA you believe your government should legislate what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom, going so far as to ban certain sexual positions (missionary seems to be the only "legal" position in all States), whereas in civilised European countries we consider what goes on in the privacy of your own home to be nobody's damn business.
Heh heh heh....don't worry Hev, no one here pays any attention to that shit:naughty2:

As for people taking pictures in public, again it's a matter of privacy and the freedom of the individual to remain anonymous. In the USA you worship vulgar displays of exhibitionism, and you don't seem concerned with matters or privacy and anonymity. The NSA can monitor your phone calls and the Patriot Act makes it clear that you have to give up a blood sample if a federal agent commands you to. In civilised European countries, monitoring phone calls or demanding blood samples from regular citizens is illegal. The draconian US proposal to monitor all traffic over the Internet, is a hotly debated subject in civilised European countries and would be considered illegal in my country, Norway.
America is a nation of contradictions. This much is for certain.

Hevneren

09-30-2011, 04:47 PM

Heh heh heh....don't worry Hev, no one here pays any attention to that shit:naughty2:

Yes, I figured as much, but it just goes to show how these hysterically puritan laws are ineffective, as they should be. :thumb001:

America is a nation of contradictions. This much is for certain.

It's quite confusing for an outsider, seeing a country that has a lot of freedoms, but that chooses to limit many of them for their own citizens.

Magister Eckhart

09-30-2011, 08:42 PM

Yes, I figured as much, but it just goes to show how these hysterically puritan laws are ineffective, as they should be. :thumb001:

More properly, they shouldn't be necessary, because people should know how to behave like human beings instead of copulating like beasts.

zack

09-30-2011, 09:57 PM

I dont really like the steroetypical french attitudes towards sex.

"but honey...it was only a little affair!" :D

rhiannon

10-01-2011, 02:03 AM

More properly, they shouldn't be necessary, because people should know how to behave like human beings instead of copulating like beasts.

Is this a Catholic thing?

Magister, please define what you mean when you say copulating like beasts in the context of a response to Hevneren's post.

Do you, as an American, agree with the laws on the books dictating acceptable sexual practices? This question does not include the OBVIOUS taboos that should exist against sex with minors, rape, etc....

The Lawspeaker

10-01-2011, 02:16 AM

More properly, they shouldn't be necessary, because people should know how to behave like human beings instead of copulating like beasts.
And that's exactly why they aren't necessary.

Magister Eckhart

10-01-2011, 06:49 PM

Is this a Catholic thing?

Magister, please define what you mean when you say copulating like beasts in the context of a response to Hevneren's post.

Do you, as an American, agree with the laws on the books dictating acceptable sexual practices? This question does not include the OBVIOUS taboos that should exist against sex with minors, rape, etc....

It should be a "thing" for any moral human being; morality is absolute, it needs no institutional adjective.

"Copulating like beasts" means in this instance anyone engaging in sexual activity in an uncontrolled manner. It is rather inappropriate when taken literally, I must admit, since animals at least seem to know by instinct what the purpose of intercourse is. Ultimately, lacking decency, decorum, and morality to engage in sexual intercourse for its intended purpose: namely, the procreation of legitimate children.

I disagree with any law meant to control morality, since it inevitably turns morality into something artificial, when morality should be recognised as absolute. The law should be used to curb the efforts of those who wish to destroy morality, i.e. used in a negative way, since law is meant to punish transgressions rather than reward behaviour that should come naturally to good people.

Now, all this is not to say that sexual intercourse with one's wife must necessarily be in the same position or posture, but at the same time allowing or encouraging non-normative sexual positions can be seen as encouragement to non-normative sexual behaviours. For example, it is easy to see where sodomy might be encouraged by the male assuming a position behind a female on all fours. Not that sodomy cannot occur in all positions, but this is without a doubt one which facilitates it most and therefore tends to encourage it. Since sodomy is an unnatural form of sexual gratification, I can easily see an argument against that position of intercourse.

Nevertheless, it is far better for the law to punish those who teach that sodomy is acceptable than to make it illegal to have sexual intercourse with one's legal spouse in more than one posture -- largely because the law will be more effective, and also because the law should punish the guilty rather than confining the innocent. Law should be simple, rather than complex, and the present "anti-sodomy" laws tend to create complex situations when they should solve a simple problem.

In short, I agree with the spirit of laws that remind people that the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction above all else, but the laws themselves do not achieve their intended purpose, therefore I oppose their actuality.

Hevneren

10-01-2011, 08:07 PM

It should be a "thing" for any moral human being; morality is absolute, it needs no institutional adjective.

Your own Bible has proven otherwise. Whereas the people in biblical times saw slavery as acceptable, our modern secular society views it as wrong, to name only one example.

"Copulating like beasts" means in this instance anyone engaging in sexual activity in an uncontrolled manner.

How can two adults have sex in an uncontrolled manner? It would seem to me like you have to be aware of what you're doing and in control of yourself to have sex, but then again I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps fundie Christians have uncontrollable sex, unlike the rest of us?

It is rather inappropriate when taken literally, I must admit, since animals at least seem to know by instinct what the purpose of intercourse is.

Several species of animal have sex just for pleasure, like bottlenose dolphins and several great apes, like the bonobos. It seems like nature and reality disagrees with you. :shrug:

Ultimately, lacking decency, decorum, and morality to engage in sexual intercourse for its intended purpose: namely, the procreation of legitimate children.

So, in your opinion sterile married couples should never have sex then? If the only purpose of sex is to procreate, then I guess that's the consequence. Let's hope neither you nor your future/present wife become sterile, or else you'll become useless and undeserving of having sex. ;)

I disagree with any law meant to control morality, since it inevitably turns morality into something artificial, when morality should be recognised as absolute.

But since your idea of morality isn't regarded as an absolute, and you yourself have admitted that laws regulating morality don't work, what are we left with? It would seem to me that morality, as you see it, isn't absolute because large portions of humanity don't see it as such. :shrug:

The law should be used to curb the efforts of those who wish to destroy morality, i.e. used in a negative way, since law is meant to punish transgressions rather than reward behaviour that should come naturally to good people.

There's no universal understanding of what morality is, so I don't know how you'd establish such a system? Were we to go with Christian morality, then we'd have to defend and support paedophile priests who rape and molest children, at any cost, and we must also - according to the Bible - stone people to death for working on the Sabbath. I guess you'll see a lot of dead bodies with cracked skulls lying beside their lawn mowers, if we're to go by the Christian version of morality. I suppose you'll be casting the first stone, yes? ;)

Now, all this is not to say that sexual intercourse with one's wife must necessarily be in the same position or posture, but at the same time allowing or encouraging non-normative sexual positions can be seen as encouragement to non-normative sexual behaviours. For example, it is easy to see where sodomy might be encouraged by the male assuming a position behind a female on all fours. Not that sodomy cannot occur in all positions, but this is without a doubt one which facilitates it most and therefore tends to encourage it. Since sodomy is an unnatural form of sexual gratification, I can easily see an argument against that position of intercourse.

For someone so prudish about sexuality, you sure like to imagine sex and people having it, in all kinds of positions. :D

But seriously, why is anal sex aka "sodomy" wrong? Are you afraid that if straight couples have anal sex with each other they'll - gasp! - "turn gay"? Don't worry, that's not how it works.

Nevertheless, it is far better for the law to punish those who teach that sodomy is acceptable than to make it illegal to have sexual intercourse with one's legal spouse in more than one posture -- largely because the law will be more effective, and also because the law should punish the guilty rather than confining the innocent. Law should be simple, rather than complex, and the present "anti-sodomy" laws tend to create complex situations when they should solve a simple problem.

So, rather than implement one kind of morality law that doesn't work (you said so yourself), you'll implement another kind of morality law? You don't want to punish or regulate the behaviour of those who engage in sex, but you want to punish or regulate the behaviour of those who talk about sex? That doesn't make any sense to me.

By the way, nobody is guilty when it comes to two consenting adults having sex, nor is anyone guilty for talking about sex between consenting adults. Civilised secular countries - unlike a theocracy like Iran - have things like freedom of speech and the freedom to do whatever you damn well want within the confines of your own home, as long as you cause nobody harm.

If you want a society built upon religious "morality", I suggest you take a look at Sudan, Somalia, Saudia Arabia and Iran.

In short, I agree with the spirit of laws that remind people that the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction above all else, but the laws themselves do not achieve their intended purpose, therefore I oppose their actuality.

What kind of laws would you have put in place against child raping Catholic priests?

Magister Eckhart

10-01-2011, 08:31 PM

Your own Bible has proven otherwise. Whereas the people in biblical times saw slavery as acceptable, our modern secular society views it as wrong, to name only one example.

Secular society has no morality: it has sentiment. There's a great gulf that separates the two.

How can two adults have sex in an uncontrolled manner? It would seem to me like you have to be aware of what you're doing and in control of yourself to have sex, but then again I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps fundie Christians have uncontrollable sex, unlike the rest of us?

I resent being called fundamentalist; I do not reduce Christianity to something so simple as the heretics. Furthermore, playing with semantics will get you nowhere: you know full well what I mean by "uncontrolled" or "unregulated" intercourse: namely, intercourse outside of marriage, or, in contemporary parlance, "promiscuity".

Several species of animal have sex just for pleasure, like bottlenose dolphins and several great apes, like the bonobos. It seems like nature and reality disagrees with you. :shrug:

In which case I suppose "copulating like beasts" is more appropriate than supposed when taken literally.

So, in your opinion sterile married couples should never have sex then? If the only purpose of sex is to procreate, then I guess that's the consequence. Let's hope neither you nor your future/present wife become sterile, or else you'll become useless and undeserving of having sex. ;)

I really hate doing this, but I'll go to scripture for this one: Elizabeth & Zecheriah and Sarah & Abraham were both supposed to be sterile, but through intervention of a divine hand had a child anyway. Human "knowledge" is hardly absolute, and I am not beyond thinking that a couple called "sterile" by science might conceive, if it is truly destined. It would certainly be a miracle in the strictest sense, but if anything is true, it is that miracles are not impossible, even by David Hume's system of probability.

But since your idea of morality isn't regarded as an absolute, and you yourself have admitted that laws regulating morality don't work, what are we left with? It would seem to me that morality, as you see it, isn't absolute because large portions of humanity don't see it as such. :shrug:

No one has "ideas" about morality; morality just is morality, and sentiments just are sentiments. Morality is absolute. What offends me or you is not. The will and desire of the majority is completely meaningless, because human beings can be in error and frequently are. An idea will remain morally evil regardless of whether it has support of one person or one million. This is why democracy is wrong.

There's no universal understanding of what morality is, so I don't know how you'd establish such a system? Were we to go with Christian morality, then we'd have to defend and support paedophile priests who rape and molest children, at any cost, and we must also - according to the Bible - stone people to death for working on the Sabbath. I guess you'll see a lot of dead bodies with cracked skulls lying beside their lawn mowers, if we're to go by the Christian version of morality. I suppose you'll be casting the first stone, yes? ;)

Where can you point to such a place as rape is acceptable? The fact that a man is accepted into the clergy does not make him less evil or less immoral than anyone else, only an authority. History readily shows that human authority is as flawed as human anything, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting this nonsense about Christian morality (as if there is such a thing as strictly "Christian" morality) allowing for child-rape and corruption of innocence.

Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting the idiotic idea that for some reason people should be stoned to death of the Sabbath; the law and morality are two different things, as anyone who has read even one line of the New Testament knows. The law has been fulfilled and replaced; in fact I can point you to the exact point in both scripture and the catechism that deals with this issue.

As for the Sabbath, setting aside a day or time for sacred observance is hardly unique to Christianity or Judaism (or the "Abrahamic faiths" in general, really). The observation of the sacred preserves social order; reverence is the means by which man recognises that he is only man. It is a means by which human arrogance, such as you display, is curbed.

I, however, will not further argue this point with someone who is clearly reaching for stock criticisms of Christianity and using his own ignorant hatred of morality to attack the stance of one who embraces and tries to live according to morals and has a sense of decency. It's a waste of time to argue with an arrogant sub-human who is content to muddle about like an ape when he has the opportunity to be something more. I confess my impatience does not become the high expectations I set for myself, but in this case I simply cannot stand to continue in response to what is blatant ignorance of reality in favour of stock-phrases typical of the militant atheist animal.

I will pray, but cannot hope, you will learn and reject the evils of liberality and godlessness.

Hevneren

10-01-2011, 08:44 PM

It's a waste of time to argue with an arrogant sub-human who is content to muddle about like an ape when he has the opportunity to be something more. I confess my impatience does not become the high expectations I set for myself, but in this case I simply cannot stand to continue in response to what is blatant ignorance of reality in favour of stock-phrases typical of the militant atheist animal.

Ah, the famed Christian love and tolerance. How moral of you. :D

I will pray, but cannot hope, you will learn and reject the evils of liberality and godlessness.

How touching. I just love judgmental Christians hiding behind compassion! While you pray for me, I'll think for you. ;)

Sahson

10-02-2011, 01:25 AM

How touching. I just love judgmental Christians hiding behind compassion! While you pray for me, I'll think for you. ;)

8SF33K1ts-E

Edelmann

10-02-2011, 01:52 AM

It's quite confusing for an outsider, seeing a country that has a lot of freedoms, but that chooses to limit many of them for their own citizens.

My god you're a fool, please stop posting. Have you even been to the US? Oooh, we don't like nipples! Oh no, I feel so deprived of my freedoms!

Pallantides

10-02-2011, 02:36 AM

Are women allowed to walk around bare chested without a bra in the US?

Sahson

10-02-2011, 02:40 AM

Are women allowed to walk around bare chested without a bra in the US?

what do you mean bare chested? without a shirt? or without a bra but wearing a shirt.

Pallantides

10-02-2011, 02:46 AM

what do you mean bare chested? without a shirt? or without a bra but wearing a shirt.

completly topless in public(no shirt or bra)

Óttar

10-02-2011, 03:03 AM

completly topless in public(no shirt or bra)
In a sports bra, yes. Topless? Maybe in California somewhere, but it wouldn't be recommended due to sneers and opportunistic men. Once at a "dyke march" in California I saw several topless women, but I'm not sure as to its legality.

We have a ridiculous attitude towards sex and the body in America, generally speaking.

askra

10-02-2011, 03:12 AM

europeans don't blame capitalism, all european countries are capitalist, but at the same time they are social democracies too,
it means higher taxation, but more equality among social classes, free education and health care system, in short: less selfishness and a higher responsibility to contribute to the welfare of own community.

Turkey

10-02-2011, 03:12 AM

this site's degenerating more and more. It must have some jew members

Sahson

10-02-2011, 03:15 AM

Boudica

10-02-2011, 03:38 AM

Why are those americans always going on about communism/socialism?

Why don't the rest of us agree with their simplistic view?

Are americans all stupid or are we just living in a vastly different society than them?

Are we actually in an identicle society to their's, just 20 years behind in the soviet conspiracy? Is america our future?

:pout: Turkey, you can't make such a complete generalization like this.. You're making a generalization of over 300 million people's thoughts and adding them all into one category, as if they all have the same mindset.. It's silly to ask if "Americans are all stupid", once again, a generalization, and a silly one at that.. Communism doesn't work.. That is obvious.. A person who doesn't want Communism isn't a stupid person..

rhiannon

10-02-2011, 03:59 AM

Are women allowed to walk around bare chested without a bra in the US?

Oh hell no. They'd be given a ticket for indecent exposure.

Turkey

10-02-2011, 03:59 AM

:pout: Turkey, you can't make such a complete generalization like this.. You're making a generalization of over 300 million people's thoughts and adding them all into one category, as if they all have the same mindset.. It's silly to ask if "Americans are all stupid", once again, a generalization, and a silly one at that.. Communism doesn't work.. That is obvious.. A person who doesn't want Communism isn't a stupid person..1wr9hpUlquw

askra

10-02-2011, 04:07 AM

I think you'll find it's not really a selfless act, but just having less responsibility and control of their lives.

i think it's inconceivable see those scenes from America showing people of middle class that have lost their job living homeless due to crisis caused from the banks and finance speculators, withouth receive any aid and support from the State.
for me that is selfishness.

Hevneren

10-02-2011, 08:06 AM

My god you're a fool, please stop posting. Have you even been to the US? Oooh, we don't like nipples! Oh no, I feel so deprived of my freedoms!

Rule 1 for being successful in debating: When you don't have a genuine argument, call someone an idiot. Well done, sir! :thumb001:

I suggest you learn a bit about your own country and government before you call people stupid.

SwordoftheVistula

10-02-2011, 08:28 AM

Regarding the 'sexual positions' laws, these were never enforced against heterosexuals, at least not since the 1600s or maybe 1700s. Laws against 'sodomy' meant gay sex. Since 2005, those are not enforceable either anymore.

completly topless in public(no shirt or bra)

Depends on state/local law. Most laws in the US are state and local laws, in recent decades it has become more federalized, but still most criminal laws and ordinances are at the state and local level. Usually, the type of people who take advantage of these laws are 50 years old and 200 lbs, so you're not missing out on anything anyways.

it means higher taxation, but more equality among social classes, free education and health care system

And also lower economic growth rate and higher unemployment. Norway has massive oil reserves, like Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea, so you can't count this as a 'success for socialism'.

i think it's inconceivable see those scenes from America showing people of middle class that have lost their job living homeless due to crisis caused from the banks and finance speculators, withouth receive any aid and support from the State.
for me that is selfishness.

The main reason we don't have jobs is way too much regulation, making it hard to run a business, so people move jobs overseas or don't run a business at all. The banks and finance speculators didn't 'cause a crisis' so much as papering over an existing crisis. They created a bunch of artificial wealth over a decade or 2 which hid structural problems with the economy. When housing prices 'crashed' they just returned to something closer to natural levels.

These 'middle class people living homeless' are actually speculators themselves, albeit of a lower level, but without them the whole bank/finance problem could not have existed. They took out loans, often more than they could pay over the long term, to buy overpriced houses on the assumption that they could later sell them for an even higher price. This, of course, can't go on forever, and eventually has to end, which it did.

Humanophage

10-02-2011, 08:56 AM

Americans are considerably more hard-working and feel much less entitlement. In general, I find them less statist in matters of everyday life. It might be a little questionable whether being that hard-working pays off, but ideologically speaking, it is a good trait.

Both capitalism and social democracy work decently for them at the moment, economically speaking, so West Europeans and Americans cling to whatever seems to work right now. When things start looking really ugly, it will change. Socialism stopped working for East Europe, so now many tend to be quite capitalist, the degree depending on how capitalism performed in the 90s (the support is usually still higher than in most of W. Europe).

An unimpressive test with a relatively small sample that could be twisted if the audience came from particular websites, but still: http://www.politicaltest.net/stats/
US: Com. +1%
Australia: Com. +7%
Canada: Com. +9%
UK: Com. +14%
France: Com. +10%
Sweden: Com. +17%
Poland: Cap. +12%
Czech Rep.: Cap. +3%

Sahson

10-02-2011, 12:02 PM

i think it's inconceivable see those scenes from America showing people of middle class that have lost their job living homeless due to crisis caused from the banks and finance speculators, withouth receive any aid and support from the State.
for me that is selfishness.

I think you'll find that Government has blood all over their hands. It's governments that create legislation, regulation, and control fiscal policy. The reserve bank controls monetary, but the government sets the laws for the reserve bank, so in the end, all the fault ends up at government's feet, because if they were sensible they would have made the right legislation to stop this from happening.

Australia is as capitalistic as America but not to the extent that america is. We have stringent regulation, and we didn't suffer a crises, because we had several occur in the early 2000's and we tightened our laws to prevent catastrophe. Australia doesn't have 'free healthcare' we have free basic healthcare, but that doesn't protect your back, and if you have any problems like cancer, well good luck.

that's why it's necessary to get insurance, and insurance is cheap. I pay $98 a month, that's $24.50 a week. Don't tell me the middle-class can't afford that. Especially when the minimum wage is about $16 an hour.

The welfare state is a massive fallacy it's like playing russian roulette, where each chamber is a crises. it only takes one of them to make a mess of government. then what? government will have to cut programs, meaning job losses.

rhiannon

10-02-2011, 12:56 PM

It should be a "thing" for any moral human being; morality is absolute, it needs no institutional adjective.

"Copulating like beasts" means in this instance anyone engaging in sexual activity in an uncontrolled manner. It is rather inappropriate when taken literally, I must admit, since animals at least seem to know by instinct what the purpose of intercourse is. Ultimately, lacking decency, decorum, and morality to engage in sexual intercourse for its intended purpose: namely, the procreation of legitimate children.

I disagree with any law meant to control morality, since it inevitably turns morality into something artificial, when morality should be recognised as absolute. The law should be used to curb the efforts of those who wish to destroy morality, i.e. used in a negative way, since law is meant to punish transgressions rather than reward behaviour that should come naturally to good people.

Now, all this is not to say that sexual intercourse with one's wife must necessarily be in the same position or posture, but at the same time allowing or encouraging non-normative sexual positions can be seen as encouragement to non-normative sexual behaviours. For example, it is easy to see where sodomy might be encouraged by the male assuming a position behind a female on all fours. Not that sodomy cannot occur in all positions, but this is without a doubt one which facilitates it most and therefore tends to encourage it. Since sodomy is an unnatural form of sexual gratification, I can easily see an argument against that position of intercourse.

Nevertheless, it is far better for the law to punish those who teach that sodomy is acceptable than to make it illegal to have sexual intercourse with one's legal spouse in more than one posture -- largely because the law will be more effective, and also because the law should punish the guilty rather than confining the innocent. Law should be simple, rather than complex, and the present "anti-sodomy" laws tend to create complex situations when they should solve a simple problem.

In short, I agree with the spirit of laws that remind people that the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction above all else, but the laws themselves do not achieve their intended purpose, therefore I oppose their actuality.

This is an interesting response...and it reads as very articulate.
Let me just ask you one question, based upon the highlighted portion above:

Based on this point, and the fact you are Catholic, my assumption is that you feel sexual intercourse should basically be reserved for the purposes of procreation.....correct?

Assuming I am correct, may I ask what would you say to the infertile or sterile couple in their 20s-30s....or to the couple that has passed their reproductive years? Are they NOT to engage in sexual intercourse ever, because procreation was never, or is no longer possible?

Magister Eckhart

10-02-2011, 07:18 PM

This is an interesting response...and it reads as very articulate.
Let me just ask you one question, based upon the highlighted portion above:

Based on this point, and the fact you are Catholic, my assumption is that you feel sexual intercourse should basically be reserved for the purposes of procreation.....correct?

Assuming I am correct, may I ask what would you say to the infertile or sterile couple in their 20s-30s....or to the couple that has past their reproductive years? Are they NOT to engage in sexual intercourse ever, because procreation was never, or is no longer possible?

I would just like to make a point of clarification, because I feel many people are getting the wrong idea about the reasons I believe certain things. Generally speaking, I have always felt that sexuality is the most dangerous of the appetites, because it causes the greatest chaos, and if it must be engaged in at all, there is only one pure purpose that I can think of, and that is reproduction. The fact that the Catholic Church agrees with this conclusion is by and large immaterial to me; my loyalty to Catholicism has other philosophical roots. I certainly do not, as many people here imply, believe anything merely because the Church holds to that. The Church has reached its conclusions for many of the same reasons I have reached my own, but I do not feel - nor does Christ's Church necessitate - that the wisdom of God come solely ex cathedra.

Anyway, that was just something general. As to your specific question, I would very much like to appeal to Aquinas, Augustine, or any of the other Church fathers who have put human reason to its most exalted use, but as it stands Sts. Paul and Matthew offer the most succinct answer:

Matt. 19:26

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

It is the very height of arrogance to say that because we, humans, have deduced something through our observations that it is utterly and completely impossible. Therefore a "sterile" couple may engage in sexual intercourse with the purpose of conception. Of course, there's no reason to say that they cannot also, if impatient with fate, adopt an orphaned child, since it is ultimately an act of charity.

All in all, though, it is better to channel the passions and control them, otherwise they will inevitably control you. Sexual passion is by and far one the most violently chaotic and controlling of all passions, so it needs an especially watchful eye kept on it. A couple engaging in sexual intercourse for the sheer pleasure of it may soon find themselves engaged in a relationship wholly dependent on sexual gratification, which is no relationship at all, and destroys matrimony and marriage, which belong to that species of institutions and relations which are in this world inherently sacred, such that to de-sanctify them destroys them entirely.

rhiannon

10-03-2011, 03:55 AM

First, I wanted to say something:
I think you are interesting to talk to. You are extremely articulate and strike me as a very deep thinker. I am drawn to people like that.

I do realize in several other threads, you and I have gone head to head. I know you disagree with most of my core values....and that is okay. I feel bad now that I once told you
you make me sick...but sometimes I just get really sick of being attacked for my own minority beliefs (on this forum).

Debate is always best when individuals can do so without engaging in personal attacks...and this exchange with you has been a great example of such. I do appreciate it:)

As for your post here:

All in all, though, it is better to channel the passions and control them, otherwise they will inevitably control you. Sexual passion is by and far one the most violently chaotic and controlling of all passions, so it needs an especially watchful eye kept on it. A couple engaging in sexual intercourse for the sheer pleasure of it may soon find themselves engaged in a relationship wholly dependent on sexual gratification, which is no relationship at all, and destroys matrimony and marriage, which belong to that species of institutions and relations which are in this world inherently sacred, such that to de-sanctify them destroys them entirely.

I agree with much of this. I am also a believer in sexual freedoms in that humans should not feel limited in the ways they express their sexuality so long as those doing so are not harming anyone in the process. But history itself speaks directly to your claim given above.....and sexual passion--or rather, the denial of such--can be one of the most dangerous states of all. Wars have started over it, for example.....Helen of Troy rings a bell.

It is the very height of arrogance to say that because we, humans, have deduced something through our observations that it is utterly and completely impossible. Therefore a "sterile" couple may engage in sexual intercourse with the purpose of conception. Of course, there's no reason to say that they cannot also, if impatient with fate, adopt an orphaned child, since it is ultimately an act of charity.
Is this also your answer to the question of the older couple which can no longer produce children? I was unclear.

I would just like to make a point of clarification, because I feel many people are getting the wrong idea about the reasons I believe certain things. Generally speaking, I have always felt that sexuality is the most dangerous of the appetites, because it causes the greatest chaos, and if it must be engaged in at all, there is only one pure purpose that I can think of, and that is reproduction. The fact that the Catholic Church agrees with this conclusion is by and large immaterial to me; my loyalty to Catholicism has other philosophical roots. I certainly do not, as many people here imply, believe anything merely because the Church holds to that. The Church has reached its conclusions for many of the same reasons I have reached my own, but I do not feel - nor does Christ's Church necessitate - that the wisdom of God come solely ex cathedra. Thank you for the clarification.

Magister Eckhart

10-03-2011, 05:29 AM

First, I wanted to say something:
I think you are interesting to talk to. You are extremely articulate and strike me as a very deep thinker. I am drawn to people like that.

I do realize in several other threads, you and I have gone head to head. I know you disagree with most of my core values....and that is okay. I feel bad now that I once told you ...but sometimes I just get really sick of being attacked for my own minority beliefs (on this forum).

See my rep comment.

Debate is always best when individuals can do so without engaging in personal attacks...and this exchange with you has been a great example of such. I do appreciate it:)

Appreciation reciprocated fully, I assure you.

I agree with much of this. I am also a believer in sexual freedoms in that humans should not feel limited in the ways they express their sexuality so long as those doing so are not harming anyone in the process. But history itself speaks directly to your claim given above.....and sexual passion--or rather, the denial of such--can be one of the most dangerous states of all. Wars have started over it, for example.....Helen of Troy rings a bell.

I am not sure where Helen of Troy enters into this, but I do not find that control necessarily means repression; in fact, equating the two seems in many ways to defeat the purpose of self-control, which is a matter of discipline. Being of a well-disciplined mind is never a negative thing, because to be well-disciplined means to know oneself fully and master oneself. Repression is self-denial, not self-control.

Is this also your answer to the question of the older couple which can no longer produce children? I was unclear.

At the risk of making it seem like a catch-all, I would say so, especially because in the scriptural context it deals almost exclusively with older couples. Whether at a certain point it is wise to procreate is another issue entirely, and the fact that many men no longer possess a sex drive after a certain age seems telling to me that perhaps engaging in sexual intercourse expends energy that might better be devoted to other things.

Thank you for the clarification.

I know I sometimes come off as a fundy, but I'm really not. I do put a lot of thought into questions of morality especially. Thank you for taking the mature approach to this; I apologise if I have not in the past taken a similar approach to you.

Turkey

10-03-2011, 06:41 AM

rhiannon

10-03-2011, 07:16 AM

rhiannon

10-03-2011, 07:26 AM

Appreciation reciprocated fully, I assure you.Fantastic:thumb001:

I am not sure where Helen of Troy enters into this, Isn't she the face that launched several wars? Kind of speaks to the danger of human sexual desire doesn't it? Eh...maybe I am wrong....my knowledge of Greek history is not up to par.

but I do not find that control necessarily means repression; in fact, equating the two seems in many ways to defeat the purpose of self-control, which is a matter of discipline. Being of a well-disciplined mind is never a negative thing, because to be well-disciplined means to know oneself fully and master oneself. Repression is self-denial, not self-control.
This makes sense to me, also.

At the risk of making it seem like a catch-all, I would say so, especially because in the scriptural context it deals almost exclusively with older couples. Whether at a certain point it is wise to procreate is another issue entirely, and the fact that many men no longer possess a sex drive after a certain age seems telling to me that perhaps engaging in sexual intercourse expends energy that might better be devoted to other things.
What age, if any, would you choose as the cut-off point? The age at which sexual expending of energy could become too risky for the individual in question?

I know I sometimes come off as a fundy, but I'm really not. I do put a lot of thought into questions of morality especially. Thank you for taking the mature approach to this; I apologise if I have not in the past taken a similar approach to you.I have a few fundy acquaintances...you do not strike me as similar. I am not particularly surprised that Catholicism is your belief system of choice...it seems to suit the way you think and express yourself.
Apology accepted:)

Joe McCarthy

10-03-2011, 07:32 AM

Magister Ekhart,

Can you please stop letting byrnecres flattering you into derailing my thread.

It's supposed to be about the riff in thinking between preservationist americans and preservationist non-americans.

I think this is important to discuss, because over and over i've seen americans screaming commie, and europeans etc displaying bewilderment at this obsession.

There might be a rift between Americans and Continentals, some of them, due to Continentals' marination in democratic socialism for the last 150 years (and even that is a generalization), but I see little evidence Brits or Aussies, generally speaking, should be lumped into the non-American side, with the exception of a few radical socialists-anti-capitalists which are fringe in all parts of the Anglosphere.

The breakdown is better stated as Germans vs. Americans, with a few other hangers on from the Continent joining the butthurt Germans in blaming America for everything.

rhiannon

10-03-2011, 07:36 AM

SwordoftheVistula

10-03-2011, 07:57 AM

Australia is as capitalistic as America but not to the extent that america is.

More so. For example:

We have stringent regulation, and we didn't suffer a crises, because we had several occur in the early 2000's and we tightened our laws to prevent catastrophe.

I looked it up, and it seems that there's even fewer regulations in Australia than in the US, with the exception that the 4 largest banks which control the financial sector in Australia are not allowed to merge.

The financial catastrophe was largely caused by regulations forcing banks to give loans to unqualified homebuyers, mainly from laws designed to force banks to give more loans to blacks & hispanics. The other main part of the problem was the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle, both of those are government backed entities, similar to the post office.

insurance is cheap. I pay $98 a month, that's $24.50 a week.

High cost of insurance is another problem caused by government regulation. One of the main problems is that businesses get a tax break for buying insurance for their employees but individuals don't get a tax break for buying their own insurance.

The other big problem is that the government heavily regulates what insurance packages are available and what discounts can be offered. For example, while older people pay less for car insurance because they are less of a risk, they are laws which strictly limit or even ban discounts for younger people, and also most discounts for healthier people are banned as well.

Even worse, is the government writes a huge list of things which every insurance policy has to cover, even if it's something the person doesn't want or even have a need for. For example, they recently made a law that every insurance policy sold must cover birth control and 'domestic violence counseling'. Men and even most women don't need birth control. 'domestic violence counseling', very few people would ever actually have a need for it. Even young single women who might be in need of these things might not need or want it covered in an insurance policy, nevermind the absurdity of forcing men to buy a policy covering these things. Yet, there it is, in the law, that every policy must cover these things. Most people are not even aware of this since they just buy the policy through work, never read the little booklet with the fine print they get explaining their policy, and only notice that their rates have increased, at which point they get angry and blame 'corporations'.

Joe McCarthy

10-03-2011, 08:07 AM

Where do you fall?
I am not sure where my views fit in the context of the OP...

Well, if I understand the concept of the thread he's basically asking why preservationist Americans don't hate capitalism. I don't hate capitalism, so I suppose I hold up the 'American' side.

rhiannon

10-03-2011, 08:16 AM

Well, if I understand the concept of the thread he's basically asking why preservationist Americans don't hate capitalism. I don't hate capitalism, so I suppose I hold up the 'American' side.

Ok. I think my views fall somewhere in the middle of the two.

Hevneren

10-03-2011, 08:48 AM

There might be a rift between Americans and Continentals, some of them, due to Continentals' marination in democratic socialism for the last 150 years (and even that is a generalization), but I see little evidence Brits or Aussies, generally speaking, should be lumped into the non-American side, with the exception of a few radical socialists-anti-capitalists which are fringe in all parts of the Anglosphere.

The breakdown is better stated as Germans vs. Americans, with a few other hangers on from the Continent joining the butthurt Germans in blaming America for everything.

You don't seem to understand intra-European politics too well. You can't lump all of Europe (apart from Britain apparently) into the label of "continentals" as if they all agree. If you knew anything about European history, you'd know we have a hard time agreeing on anything, and post-WWII you'll be even more hard pressed to find European nations falling in line with Germany on everything. My point is that Europe is no bloc, and certainly not a bloc lead by Germany.

As for your peculiar belief that all of Europe has been democratic socialist for the past 150 years, I'm not even going to bother with a serious rebuttal. :rolleyes:

Joe McCarthy

10-03-2011, 09:05 AM

QUOTE=Hevneren;545267]You don't seem to understand intra-European politics too well. You can't lump all of Europe (apart from Britain apparently) into the label of "continentals" as if they all agree. If you knew anything about European history, you'd know we have a hard time agreeing on anything, and post-WWII you'll be even more hard pressed to find European nations falling in line with Germany on everything. My point is that Europe is no bloc, and certainly not a bloc lead by Germany.

As for your peculiar belief that all of Europe has been democratic socialist for the past 150 years, I'm not even going to bother with a serious rebuttal. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Next time try reading what I said, rather than imposing your own interpretation on it.

I am talking about 'preservationists', as that is apparently what we're discussing. I'm not talking about European politics or history.

You even completely mischaracterized my point on Continentals and democratic socialism. If anything I understated the point as bold faced Communism has also had much more traction there than here

Turkey

10-03-2011, 09:23 AM

There might be a rift between Americans and Continentals, some of them, due to Continentals' marination in democratic socialism for the last 150 years (and even that is a generalization), but I see little evidence Brits or Aussies, generally speaking, should be lumped into the non-American side, with the exception of a few radical socialists-anti-capitalists which are fringe in all parts of the Anglosphere.

The breakdown is better stated as Germans vs. Americans, with a few other hangers on from the Continent joining the butthurt Germans in blaming America for everything.

I think you're all just brainwashed into an anti-communist mindset left over from the cold war. I don't mean that inflammatorily, especially not to the Americans on this site, because you keep screaming 'commie' down to a dull roar, and accept the problems with capitalists.

sZ8ZvYNlxiM

Sahson

10-03-2011, 09:35 AM

You don't seem to understand intra-European politics too well. You can't lump all of Europe (apart from Britain apparently) into the label of "continentals" as if they all agree. If you knew anything about European history, you'd know we have a hard time agreeing on anything, and post-WWII you'll be even more hard pressed to find European nations falling in line with Germany on everything. My point is that Europe is no bloc, and certainly not a bloc lead by Germany.

As for your peculiar belief that all of Europe has been democratic socialist for the past 150 years, I'm not even going to bother with a serious rebuttal. :rolleyes:

Whether you like it or not, one can group Europe in the respect that their are a lot of social programs in European nations from the last 30 or so years. There is the existence of the welfare state, and it is more predominant in Europe, than in British colonial nations.

Hevneren

10-03-2011, 09:57 AM

Whether you like it or not, one can group Europe in the respect that their are a lot of social programs in European nations from the last 30 or so years. There is the existence of the welfare state, and it is more predominant in Europe, than in British colonial nations.

Perhaps, but there are large variations between each European country, and these nuances are often overlooked.

Motörhead Remember Me

10-03-2011, 10:02 AM

I think the difference is more between Germanic (capitalist) and non-Germanic (more socialist) nationalist. The Germanic nationalist parties with the most support tend to be capitalist, like the Vlaams Belang (Flanders, Belgium), Geert Wilders, Danish Peoples' Party, Swiss Peoples' Party, Austrian Freedom Party, and Norway Progress Party. You could probably even add Italy's Northern League into this. The exceptions to this are Germany's NPD (economically left wing, and not very successful) and Britain's BNP (economically centrist, had some marginal success for a time period).

The celtic (Sinn Fein, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru), Slavic, and Romance nations along with Greece seem to have national-socialist type parties.

I think a lot has to do with the Anglos/Germanics being on top in the prior existing power structure, thus supporting capitalism, whereas others like the Scots and Poles have sort of a colonial mentality in which they see themselves as historically 'oppressed'.
?????

I honestly don't know if you know enough about Europe... But, you're an American so I don't have high hopes.

SwordoftheVistula

10-03-2011, 10:04 AM

?????

I honestly don't know if you know enough about Europe... But, you're an American so I don't have high hopes.

Apparently more than you, it seems.

Which country or party are you disputing in terms of whether the dominant 'nationalist' party has a capitalist or socialist orientation?

Turkey

10-03-2011, 10:07 AM

Perhaps, but there are large variations between each European country, and these nuances are often overlooked.

This is true. Those who advocate mass immigration shame us with different reasons in differnt countries.

In britain and france it's, but you had colonies so now it's your turn.

In australia and canada it's, but you stole this land off the indigenous, who are you to complain?

In germany it's, you will only become nazis again if you preserve your race.

In sweden, one reason I heard was, because you had a couple of black slaves once for a short time.

And the wealthy industrialists laugh all the way to the bank

arcticwolf

10-23-2011, 06:21 AM

As far as I know we are over 300 million individuals with different opinions and take on things. There is no such thing as typical American. But if someone wants to believe there is, so be it ;)

Turkey

10-23-2011, 06:55 AM

As far as I know we are over 300 million individuals with different opinions and take on things. There is no such thing as typical American. But if someone wants to believe there is, so be it ;)

well that's err... very progressive of you,but generalizing is an intrinsic part of deduction. It is impossible to act without generalizing or stereotyping.

If you cam't see the difference in american preservation and the others then so be it indeed, however I think you'll find it's quite elementary my girl.

Boudica

10-23-2011, 07:51 AM

well that's err... very progressive of you,but generalizing is an intrinsic part of deduction. It is impossible to act without generalizing or stereotyping.

If you cam't see the difference in american preservation and the others then so be it indeed, however I think you'll find it's quite elementary my girl.

.... What are you even talking about? Generalizations, especially like the one you just made, are completely ridiculous and they are not accurate. You can't stereotype over 300 million people.. Also, further explain your statement that I put in bold.

Turkey

10-23-2011, 08:02 AM

.... What are you even talking about? Generalizations, especially like the one you just made, are completely ridiculous and they are not accurate. You can't stereotype over 300 million people.. Also, further explain your statement that I put in bold.

I'm generalising about european preservationists and other preservationists. not about all people.

Everyone else knows exactly waht I'm talking about and I can see that from the previous discussion in this thread. They took it up exactly as I intended it to be taken.

It's about the american preservationist preoccupation with socialism while other europeans look to other factors.

If you can't see it , I can't explain it better and more concisely than that.

AussieScott

10-23-2011, 09:38 AM

I think the difference is more between Germanic (capitalist) and non-Germanic (more socialist) nationalist. The Germanic nationalist parties with the most support tend to be capitalist, like the Vlaams Belang (Flanders, Belgium), Geert Wilders, Danish Peoples' Party, Swiss Peoples' Party, Austrian Freedom Party, and Norway Progress Party. You could probably even add Italy's Northern League into this. The exceptions to this are Germany's NPD (economically left wing, and not very successful) and Britain's BNP (economically centrist, had some marginal success for a time period).

The celtic (Sinn Fein, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru), Slavic, and Romance nations along with Greece seem to have national-socialist type parties.

I think a lot has to do with the Anglos/Germanics being on top in the prior existing power structure, thus supporting capitalism, whereas others like the Scots and Poles have sort of a colonial mentality in which they see themselves as historically 'oppressed'.

Majority of the fascist Capitalist Scots left Scotland from the 50's on wards when the Blacks were being imported into England. In fact they were politely asked to leave in the 6o's so as to avoid a Northern Ireland conflict.

That's why I live in Australia. :)

Divide and conquer as per usual.