Advertisement
by Aeringard » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:00 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:01 pm
The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003, states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.
I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.
Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.
by San Lumen » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 pm
The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003 states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.
I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.
Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:1) They are both embracing sins.
2) I mean if you know they did it. If you know they did it, then you're just helping a murderer. If you are loyal to an individual more than you are to what you think is right, then you have no business raising children, because you would raise them with a moral weakness and idleness that will turn them into lousy excuses for human beings.
If I knew they'd done it, I'd still put an attorney on their case to get them out of it with a "no guilty" charge and I would not testify against them, but rather work with my lawyer to testify in my child's best interests.
I do find being loyal being right. I am loyal to my friends, lovers, and family. But with the same amount of loyalty I give I also expect a shitload of loyalty from them. The price of loyalty is a high one, but so are the rewards reaped out of being loyal.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:04 pm
by Neutraligon » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:06 pm
That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions on how humans should interact with each other and other parts of our world I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.
How did you determine god is good?I believe the supreme good = God
I am not sure it is as simple as thatUtilitarians believe the supreme good = human happiness and lack of suffering
I am not sure it is as simple as that.Nihilists believe there is no supreme good
That's a few examples.
by The Shrailleeni Empire » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:06 pm
San Lumen wrote:The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003 states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.
I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.
Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.
I sincerely doubt Lawerence V Texas will be overturned. A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned because someone disagrees with the decision. You must present a different constitutional question than the previous.
New Edom wrote:Elizabeth Salt remarked, "It's amazing, isn't it, you rarely see modern troops that wear their 19th century uniforms and gear so well--they must drill all the time. Is this a guards outfit?"
Sif said to her, "This is a modern Shrailleeni Empire military parade. Like as in this is what they wear, this is what they use. This is it."
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:06 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neutraligon wrote: Are you really going to claim that all "sins" are the same? And what if god demanded they commit that crime? He has ordered his people to kill in the past, supposedly.
If they committed the crime I would still attempt to get them to turn themselves in and try to get them a good lawyer so that they do not get the death penalty. I would not disinherit them nor would I stop talking to them. No matter what they are still my child. If you are going to ignore that your actions actively harm your child and are going to increase the chance they will commit suicide, if you are going to force your child to choose between you and their chance at happiness, if you are going to so harm your child's mental well being that you will turn against them then you should not have a child. Oh, and loyalty to my child is what is right.
So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:07 pm
Neutraligon wrote:That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.United Muscovite Nations wrote:Supreme good = what makes things moralHow did you determine god is good?I believe the supreme good = GodI am not sure it is as simple as thatUtilitarians believe the supreme good = human happiness and lack of sufferingI am not sure it is as simple as that.Nihilists believe there is no supreme goodThat's a few examples.
That did not clarify anything and so I still cannot answer that.
by The Shrailleeni Empire » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:08 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:In the United States, rounding up LGBT people has already happened in several states in the past. That's what anti-sodomy laws and "crimes against nature" were originally created for. While the repeal of these laws in the U.S. started earlier, until 2003, states like Alabama were still routinely rounding up open LGBT members and throwing them into prison.
I worry that the current U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 2003 decision on the basis of "states rights" and allow this to occur in states with deeply religious and conservative legislatures once again.
Will every single LGBT person in the entire country, nay, the world be "rounded up" as the OP title suggests? I find that difficult to believe. But in many places including inside of the United States I believe that it is a very real danger.
Also a very real thing in several other countries, like Chechnya's "lack of gay men"
New Edom wrote:Elizabeth Salt remarked, "It's amazing, isn't it, you rarely see modern troops that wear their 19th century uniforms and gear so well--they must drill all the time. Is this a guards outfit?"
Sif said to her, "This is a modern Shrailleeni Empire military parade. Like as in this is what they wear, this is what they use. This is it."
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:08 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
If I knew they'd done it, I'd still put an attorney on their case to get them out of it with a "no guilty" charge and I would not testify against them, but rather work with my lawyer to testify in my child's best interests.
I do find being loyal being right. I am loyal to my friends, lovers, and family. But with the same amount of loyalty I give I also expect a shitload of loyalty from them. The price of loyalty is a high one, but so are the rewards reaped out of being loyal.
See, I think that's pretty fucked up. If a family member murdered someone, I would feel morally compelled to turn them in and see to it that they were convicted for their crime.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by San Lumen » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:08 pm
The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:San Lumen wrote:I sincerely doubt Lawerence V Texas will be overturned. A Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned because someone disagrees with the decision. You must present a different constitutional question than the previous.
That is the hope yes, and I don't think that it is inevitable. But I do know that various attempts throughout the U.S. to build cases on that basis and for that reason, mostly by "Family Advocacy Groups" are already in the works.
by Threlizdun » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:08 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neutraligon wrote: Are you really going to claim that all "sins" are the same? And what if god demanded they commit that crime? He has ordered his people to kill in the past, supposedly.
If they committed the crime I would still attempt to get them to turn themselves in and try to get them a good lawyer so that they do not get the death penalty. I would not disinherit them nor would I stop talking to them. No matter what they are still my child. If you are going to ignore that your actions actively harm your child and are going to increase the chance they will commit suicide, if you are going to force your child to choose between you and their chance at happiness, if you are going to so harm your child's mental well being that you will turn against them then you should not have a child. Oh, and loyalty to my child is what is right.
So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.
by Neutraligon » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:08 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neutraligon wrote: That does not clarify the meaning. Also since I think morals are simply opinions I do not think there is a thing that makes things universally moral.
How did you determine god is good?
I am not sure it is as simple as that
I am not sure it is as simple as that.
That did not clarify anything and so I still cannot answer that.
If you think that morals are simply opinions, how can loyalty to your family be what is right?
Threlizdun wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.
They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:13 pm
Threlizdun wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:So you mean to say that loyalty to family is the supreme good? What absurd folly.
They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?
by Neutraligon » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:15 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Threlizdun wrote:They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?
And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:17 pm
Neutraligon wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.
Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:17 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Threlizdun wrote:They never suggested it was the supreme good, merely that the role of the parent necessitates loving and caring for the wellbeing of their children. Even if they did suggest it was the supreme good, how is that any more absurd than arguing the supreme good is to follow the Orthodox Church's current beliefs on what their god wants from them, even if the consequences of this leads to your children being miserable and at higher risk to violence or suicide?
And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Neutraligon » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:18 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neutraligon wrote:Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.
They would also be more likely to turn away from such a lifestyle and return to the faith, which would be for their wellbeing.
by Hashirajima » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:18 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:18 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:And I think that supporting one's child in committing grievously sinful actions is not caring for their wellbeing. In fact, it is doing the opposite, it is apathy toward what becomes of them.
You can only do so much, though.
You can raise them to be good kids and all, but if they fuck up, they fuck up.
Now, there is a difference between fucking up and a betrayal, but that's not what you're talking about, here.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:19 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neutraligon wrote:Given that your actions tend to mean that they are more likely to commit suicide you are in fact working against their wellbeing.
They would also be more likely to turn away from such a lifestyle and return to the faith, which would be for their wellbeing.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by The Shrailleeni Empire » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:19 pm
San Lumen wrote:The Shrailleeni Empire wrote:
That is the hope yes, and I don't think that it is inevitable. But I do know that various attempts throughout the U.S. to build cases on that basis and for that reason, mostly by "Family Advocacy Groups" are already in the works.
On what basis? A case built on "I disagree with this decision and have a right to not be around people i don't like" will not fly even in the most conservative of courts.
New Edom wrote:Elizabeth Salt remarked, "It's amazing, isn't it, you rarely see modern troops that wear their 19th century uniforms and gear so well--they must drill all the time. Is this a guards outfit?"
Sif said to her, "This is a modern Shrailleeni Empire military parade. Like as in this is what they wear, this is what they use. This is it."
by Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:20 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
You can only do so much, though.
You can raise them to be good kids and all, but if they fuck up, they fuck up.
Now, there is a difference between fucking up and a betrayal, but that's not what you're talking about, here.
If they completely disregard everything I have taught them, then I could consider that a betrayal.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -Singapura-, Atestia, Cheblonsk, Lovefest, Nationalist Northumbria, The Holy Therns, Vussul, Will Burtz, Xind, ZaDakka
Advertisement