The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

Is there something I should know that you're not telling me?

I was thinking more of her love affair with nukes.
And squishing coal-miners.


Look, don't mind me. I'm very left-wing, and Ms Thatcher was far to the right of where I am. I'm not questioning her competency or intelligence. It was still the Cold War and there's no question that Nuclear stale-mate or dead-lock worked for a very long time to keep the Communists and the West off each others' throats, until the USSR empire collapsed under the weight of it's own corruption, incompetence and tyranny.

I'm not really questioning the ultimate good-will in intention of her aims and goals, or rather that in her mind what she was doing was best for Britain. It's just that I really disagreed with so many of her methods, and that's a function of my political differences with her. Politically I have a lot of moral differences with her.

I was brought up in a family that was very anti-nukes full stop. That no-one has used a nuke in anger since WWII is a continual marvel to me and proof that we are collectively capable of sanity. The genie of nukes has been let out of the bottle, and there's no going back. But I would be a lot more easy in my mind if I could be assured that no nuclear bombs existed anywhere. The horrors of radiation fall-out and possible Nuclear Winter chill me to my bones. I'm really not a fan of any country actively building up it's nuclear ******** Even if they are solely there for defensive deterrence my pacifistic upbringing can't help but see a nuclear ******* as a war-mongering event in itself.

If it's any consolation I see the recentish acquisition of nukes by India and Pakistan, and the presumed secret nukes of Israel, as warmongering too.

I have a great love of India. The religious troubles that spawned Pakistan make me sad, and the continuing tensions between Pakistan and India make me sad too, but otherwise I don't have any problems with Pakistan. I love that whole amazing Sub-Continental (South Asian) culture and respect it's amazing historical heritage. I think it was a massive mistake after WWII to create the new, modern state of Israel, but now it's there, I don't want a single Israeli harmed. I can see why they'd want the security of nukes when they are so surrounded by threat.

But still, in my books, nukes simply = warmongering.

Edited, Nov 6th 2008 9:02am by Aripyanfar

Huh? Gay marriage is legal in Mass.

Nexa

That's ok, but you should know that not only is it legal in Massachusetts, but it will also be legal in Connecticut starting next week. New York, while not performing marriages between two people of the same sex, recognizes those marriages performed in other states (so if you're from New York, you can go get married in CT or MA and it will "count" there).

Nexa

I agree, I find it incredible too. There's a quote i quite like, that says something like "By conituously juggling with the Bomb, it's bound to fall one day."

As for Thatcher, well, I dunno if she's "war-mongering". Some of her actions during the Falklands were a bit controversial, no doubt about it. But I don't know if that makes her a "war-monger".

Though, fundamentally, I think the Falklands should be peacefully handed over to the Argentinians. Just by looking at a map, it seems slightly obvious. And it's not like there's that much there anyway.

It doesn't matter if it is inherent or immutable--there is no reason for the discrimination to occur. It has nothing to do with the legal questions surrounding it and both of you should know better.

If nothing else, there is some bisexual erasure here where we pretend that it is an issue only for people who aren't sexually attracted at all to anyone of the opposite sex.

Edited, Nov 6th 2008 10:45am by Annabella

No,the immutability of homosexuality is irrelevant because it presupposes that the behavior itself is problematic.

It is anything but the heart of the matter. Whether or not one's sexuality is a choice or not is entirely irrelevant to its moral or ethical status. The idea that homosexuality is somehow redeemed because certain people just can't help themselves bless their fucking little hearts is one of the most hollow and vapidly insulting things that I have ever heard in my entire fucking life. This entirely stupid and pointless avenue of justification assumes as one of it's first goddamned principles that homosexuality is wrong, and then proceeds to make it a necessary wrong because a bunch of poor heathens just can't do otherwise boo hoo, those poor souls.

If I want to make sweet love to a dude instead of a lady then that choice has absolutely no more moral impact on your life or mine than me choosing to eat potatoes for lunch instead of peas.

If homosexuality is a learned behavior or a preference, then so is heterosexuality. Therefore, either all marriage should be recognized by the government, or no marriage should be.

For now.

The issue isn't going away.

The majority of individuals do not decide what is right or wrong in terms of a given behavior's correspondence with various ethical theories.

You get to pick which theory your society shall live by, but once that is done, the moral status of all behaviors are set in stone. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the ethical theory by which we live our lives includes homosexual marriage is irrelevant. Simply, they are wrong.

Certainly, as a means of practical ethics (practical in the vernacular sense and not in the ethical sense) what the majority decides has a lot of value because those simply are the laws that will be enacted, but we really don't care about what laws are enacted when we are talking about ethics. We only care about what laws should be enacted as they either do or do not correspond with our system of liberty. How do I know that homosexual marriage is one of the laws that corresponds?

The very liberty which enables democracy also encapsulates homosexual marriage in accordance with keeping a coherent body of laws, and avoiding antinomy.

That guiding principle is, very simply, equal protection and recognition under the law.

Says who? A heterosexual?

A homosexual does not have an instintual urge to mate with someone of the opposite sex.

If you have some study done that proves that heterosexuality is an instinct, and homosexuals are thereby avoiding that instinct, please by all means cite it.

I can't help but wonder if you're reading what you are typing.

There is nothing that says that heterosexuality is instinctual. It very well may be, but I can't see a way that one (heterosexuality) would be instinctual while the other (homosexuality) would not be. It makes no sense whatsoever.

It stands to reason that if one is an instinct, the other must be as well. If one is a choice, the other must be as well.

Then, of course, there are bi-sexual people who are instinctively (or by choice) attracted to members of both sexes.