NationStates

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As a side note, the term “totalitarian” implies the morally corrupt abuse of power, which I seek to avoid.

Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:If you don't have this blasting from your computer speakers 24/7 then you aren't a real rightist. Change my mind.

What if you're a rightist but you don't like Monarchist Germany?

bad

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As a side note, the term “totalitarian” implies the morally corrupt abuse of power, which I seek to avoid.

Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

He seriously said that?

Cappuccina wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

He seriously said that?

He doesn't see how sex is appealing and yes, he did say the hatchery stuff.

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As a side note, the term “totalitarian” implies the morally corrupt abuse of power, which I seek to avoid.

Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

Reminds me of Brave New World.

Shit, man. People don't understand 1984 and Brave New World were warnings, not advice.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

Reminds me of Brave New World.

Shit, man. People don't understand 1984 and Brave New World were warnings, not advice.

The only difference being that Brave New World had the government using drugs and sex to control people, while this state would try to block those things.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:He seriously said that?

He doesn't see how sex is appealing and yes, he did say the hatchery stuff.

What matters is not one's subjective opinion as to whether or not sex is "appealing", but rather the objective issue of what effect it has on society.

Bienenhalde wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:He doesn't see how sex is appealing and yes, he did say the hatchery stuff.

What matters is not one's subjective opinion as to whether or not sex is "appealing", but rather the objective issue of what effect it has on society.

What is this even supposed to mean?

The state would be overthrown within a week if it seriously tried to make such a breach on human rights. Or face an exodus that would require a super-sized Berlin Wall.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Reminds me of Brave New World.

Shit, man. People don't understand 1984 and Brave New World were warnings, not advice.

The only difference being that Brave New World had the government using drugs and sex to control people, while this state would try to block those things.

Yeah, I remember. The book literally ended with a giant orgie lol

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As a side note, the term “totalitarian” implies the morally corrupt abuse of power, which I seek to avoid.

Your views seem heavily totalitarian, cartoonishly so. I don't know of any other authoritarian, outside of comic book villains, who want to abolish sex and replace families with state-run “hatcheries.”

My apologies, Hanafuridake; I can assure you that I had no intent to cause offense or be impolite. And the hatchery system is more intended as speculation than serious policy proposal, at least nowadays (since there was a time when I sincerely and wholeheartedly advocated for such a system; gosh, I was an embarrassment back then).

Bienenhalde wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:He doesn't see how sex is appealing and yes, he did say the hatchery stuff.

What matters is not one's subjective opinion as to whether or not sex is "appealing", but rather the objective issue of what effect it has on society.

I agree. Sex has a role in creation and maintenance of the family stucture... therefore, it should not be abolished by the state in favor of detached birthing of man through "hatcheries". The State's role is not to replace the family.

My apologies; hopefully I haven’t inadvertently alienated myself from y’all via impropriety...

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:My apologies; hopefully I haven’t inadvertently alienated myself from y’all via impropriety...

You're views are your views, I'm simply stating my opinion on them, don't take it personally.

Cappuccina wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:My apologies; hopefully I haven’t inadvertently alienated myself from y’all via impropriety...

You're views are your views, I'm simply stating my opinion on them, don't take it personally.

You make a valid point, but I’m morally obligated to apologize and seek to make amends if I even suspect that I’ve done something improper and unbecoming of me, y’know?

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:My apologies, Hanafuridake; I can assure you that I had no intent to cause offense or be impolite.

Stop saying that. It's more annoying that you keep insisting on apologizing (and no, you don't need to apologize for this).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:You're views are your views, I'm simply stating my opinion on them, don't take it personally.

You make a valid point, but I’m morally obligated to apologize and seek to make amends if I even suspect that I’ve done something improper and unbecoming of me, y’know?

Why are you morally obligated to apologise for your views? I'm just a person on the internet. Having opinions isn't improper.

Cappuccina wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
What matters is not one's subjective opinion as to whether or not sex is "appealing", but rather the objective issue of what effect it has on society.

I agree. Sex has a role in creation and maintenance of the family stucture... therefore, it should not be abolished by the state in favor of detached birthing of man through "hatcheries". The State's role is not to replace the family.

More importantly than that, it’s good for one’s mental health. We’re built for sex, evolutionarily.

The State’s role is completely subjective.

Bienenhalde wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:He doesn't see how sex is appealing and yes, he did say the hatchery stuff.

What matters is not one's subjective opinion as to whether or not sex is "appealing", but rather the objective issue of what effect it has on society.

And the family being more fundamental to social stability than the state, tinkering with it is a much worse idea than with changing the accidents of the state. Sex being rather fundamental to the establishment of the families, the role of the state is mostly to direct it towards the worthwhile end of building and procreating strong families as opposed to recreation or individualist liberation.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:You're views are your views, I'm simply stating my opinion on them, don't take it personally.

You make a valid point, but I’m morally obligated to apologize and seek to make amends if I even suspect that I’ve done something improper and unbecoming of me, y’know?

Constant apologizing for things that don't need to be apologized for is improper and unbecoming.

Kowani wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:I agree. Sex has a role in creation and maintenance of the family stucture... therefore, it should not be abolished by the state in favor of detached birthing of man through "hatcheries". The State's role is not to replace the family.

More importantly than that, it’s good for one’s mental health. We’re built for sex, evolutionarily.

The State’s role is completely subjective.

Yes, sex is healthy, in the right context.

The State's role is maintenance of social order, and enforcement of policy to that end.

Hanafuridake wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:My apologies, Hanafuridake; I can assure you that I had no intent to cause offense or be impolite.

Stop saying that. It's more annoying that you keep insisting on apologizing (and no, you don't need to apologize for this).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

Cappuccina wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
You make a valid point, but I’m morally obligated to apologize and seek to make amends if I even suspect that I’ve done something improper and unbecoming of me, y’know?

Why are you morally obligated to apologise for your views? I'm just a person on the internet. Having opinions isn't improper.

But what will I do when I cause offense, or do something morally wrong? Should I pay penance via mortification of the flesh?

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Stop saying that. It's more annoying that you keep insisting on apologizing (and no, you don't need to apologize for this).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

Cappuccina wrote:Why are you morally obligated to apologise for your views? I'm just a person on the internet. Having opinions isn't improper.

But what will I do when I cause offense, or do something morally wrong? Should I pay penance via mortification of the flesh?

Mortification of the flesh brings discipline to the flesh; mortification to the ego brings discipline to the spirit.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Stop saying that. It's more annoying that you keep insisting on apologizing (and no, you don't need to apologize for this).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

Cappuccina wrote:Why are you morally obligated to apologise for your views? I'm just a person on the internet. Having opinions isn't improper.

But what will I do when I cause offense, or do something morally wrong? Should I pay penance via mortification of the flesh?

Pro tip: don't give a shit if you offend anybody, it's what I do

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Stop saying that. It's more annoying that you keep insisting on apologizing (and no, you don't need to apologize for this).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

Cappuccina wrote:Why are you morally obligated to apologise for your views? I'm just a person on the internet. Having opinions isn't improper.

But what will I do when I cause offense, or do something morally wrong? Should I pay penance via mortification of the flesh?

Causing offense and being morally wrong aren't the same thing, they can coincide, but one isn't necessarily the other in a given context.

If you're morally wrong make penance, surely. But if one simply happens to offend only by stating one's beliefs, that's the other person's problem, not yours.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:


But what will I do when I cause offense, or do something morally wrong? Should I pay penance via mortification of the flesh?

Pro tip: don't give a shit if you offend anybody, it's what I do

Exactly this.