What do you mean? Libertarianism is founded on the principle of selfishness and that's a right-wing school of thought through-and-through. The concept is hardly unique to left-wing thinking, in fact socialism is heavily based on a lack of selfishness.
Anyways, on the specific topic, I don't see why we can't just leave people to manage their own sexual lives, as long as it isn't harming anyone.
Originally posted by FlyattractorWell, I agree with you in that socialism hasn't ever fully succeeded, but neither has capitalism. They're both great ideas in theory, but humans aren't able to remove selfishness and corruption from the equation, which ends up ruining both capitalist and socialist societies.
[b]That is kind of the problem. Sex normally involved more then 1 person.And on the Socialism line. There is what they Say and then what they DO.
Actions speak louder then words.
Hence why Socialism , A Leftist Ideal, has been shown to NEVER WORK.
Much like how they view Relationships.
[/B]
But still, if it's two (or more) consenting adults, then they should be able to do whatever they like, really. Because if you're going to start saying that we should stop people doing these things you disagree with, you're essentially saying you agree with authoritarianism, which is the first step on the road to outright fascism.
Originally posted by Scribble
What do you mean? Libertarianism is founded on the principle of selfishness and that's a right-wing school of thought through-and-through.
It's possible to be a libertarian or classical liberal who still thinks people should give to charity, just as it's possible to be a free-speech advocate who believes hateful speech is immoral, both of these groups just find the use of force to compel it immoral.
Originally posted by Scribble
The concept is hardly unique to left-wing thinking, in fact socialism is heavily based on a lack of selfishness.
There's nothing selfless about using state power to completely revoke people's right to property.
Originally posted by Scribble
Anyways, on the specific topic, I don't see why we can't just leave people to manage their own sexual lives, as long as it isn't harming anyone.
You know what would be truly selfless? If we had a society where everyone was forced by the state to have sex with everyone. Then everyone would get all the sex and nobody would be left out. See, selfless.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
LOL what? No the principle of libertarian thought isn't selfishness, the principle is the non-aggression principle, that the government should stay out of infringing upon people's rights and intervening in their lives via force as much as possible. That's not a selfish presupposition, it's a presupposition that respects the autonomy and liberty of the individual.
Well, that's a bit of a negative spin on it. I think a better summary is "maximum individual liberty" and from there, it's just many different schools of thought on what is appropriate liberty and what is appropriate governance. Libertarian-Anarchism would be one extreme of truly maximum liberty.
Sorry, do not mean to interject in your convo. Just wanted to put a more positive spin on it.
Originally posted by Scribble
What's the difference between cuckolding and just plain ol' fashioned swinging? Because people have been swinging since the dawn of time. Is it the specific case where it only happens to a guy?
Cuckolding doesn't mean consent, it's a husband who has an unfaithful wife, it's a cheating spouse. The 'cuckold fantasy' thing is an entirely different animal, it seems to be where a husband consents to his wife having sex outside of their marriage, it's essentially like swinging, except it seems the husband may or may not be involved sexually, not 100% sure here.
But as you said, if the sex is between consenting adults, who cares; the state has no business telling them what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes. On a hilarious note, the "cuckold fantasy" thing seems to be far more prominent in porn searches for Red states/Conservative areas. But yeah, let them do what they want if it's consensual.
Originally posted by Scribble
Well, I agree with you in that socialism hasn't ever fully succeeded, but neither has capitalism. They're both great ideas in theory, but humans aren't able to remove selfishness and corruption from the equation, which ends up ruining both capitalist and socialist societies.But still, if it's two (or more) consenting adults, then they should be able to do whatever they like, really. Because if you're going to start saying that we should stop people doing these things you disagree with, you're essentially saying you agree with authoritarianism, which is the first step on the road to outright fascism.
That is normally the Failing of all Things.. Never taking into factor the Human Nature Issue.
Such as the argument of the "Consenting Adults" and why it is more of a fallacy then a fact.
Originally posted by FlyattractorWhat do you mean by the idea of "consenting adults" being fallacy? I'm interested and don't quite know what you mean.
[b]That is normally the Failing of all Things.. Never taking into factor the Human Nature Issue.Such as the argument of the "Consenting Adults" and why it is more of a fallacy then a fact.
[/B]
Aside from that, yeah, human nature is generally gonna screw most things up, unfortunately.
Originally posted by EmperordmbFirst off, apologies for upsetting you by making a claim about libertarianism.
LOL what? No the principle of libertarian thought isn't selfishness, the principle is the non-aggression principle, that the government should stay out of infringing upon people's rights and intervening in their lives via force as much as possible. That's not a selfish presupposition, it's a presupposition that respects the autonomy and liberty of the individual.It's possible to be a libertarian or classical liberal who still thinks people should give to charity, just as it's possible to be a free-speech advocate who believes hateful speech is immoral, both of these groups just find the use of force to compel it immoral.
Oh yeah, this person has more wealth than me, I'm gonna ***** about how the government should forcibly take their property from them. Complete selflessness my dude.
There's nothing selfless about using state power to completely revoke people's right to property.
Not intervening in and controlling people's lives? How selfish of you.
You know what would be truly selfless? If we had a society where everyone was forced by the state to have sex with everyone. Then everyone would get all the sex and nobody would be left out. See, selfless.
Yeah, I know that that is the actual founding principle of libertarianism, but most libertarians I've met seem generally to be very selfish people; "scrap social programs because I deserve to spend my money on myself, not on poor people or taxes", etc. I've rarely seen a libertarian saying "Scrap social programs, we don't need to be forced to be good people, we'll give that much back to society ourselves!" - it's almost always in the context of the person wanting to do what they want, get paid, and not have to give a damn or give a dime to anyone.
Thinking that giving to charity is a good thing is wonderful and all, but it doesn't benefit humans or society. If you live in a fully libertarian society, it wouldn't remain libertarian for long because wealthy oligarchs would eventually create a society with no social mobility so that they never have to part with any of their money. That's human nature: selfish, avaricious human nature. You can believe ultimate freedom is good whilst being blind to the fact that ultimate freedom will only ever end in tyranny in some form or other. A libertarian society that simultaneously champions "the individual" whilst providing zero opportunity for most individuals' social mobility is not a libertarian society at all, it is a dystopian capitalist oligarchy.
Libertarianism, anarchy, and socialism alike are all doomed to failure in the end, imo. They rely on themselves too much, the only path society can take that could possibly work is a full integration of libertarianism, capitalism and socialism, a society founded on basic principles of decency, goodness, and mindfulness. Never gonna happen tho.
No idea what the last part of your post means, it's obviously some kind of form of humour, but it doesn't scan very well, so the joke and point is lost on me.
Originally posted by Scribble
What's the difference between cuckolding and just plain ol' fashioned swinging? Because people have been swinging since the dawn of time. Is it the specific case where it only happens to a guy?
In the context of the article, cuckolding is a dude who likes to watch some other dude bang his wife/gf/whatever.
I mean I guess if they wanna do it cool, it just seems weird to me lol.
Originally posted by SurturWhatever floats people's boats, really. Furries are ****ing weird but they aren't doing anything to bother me specifically.
In the context of the article, cuckolding is a dude who likes to watch some other dude bang his wife/gf/whatever.I mean I guess if they wanna do it cool, it just seems weird to me lol.
Originally posted by RobtardFrom what I've read, the guy usually takes part by watching. Again, float/boat, etc.
Cuckolding doesn't mean consent, it's a husband who has an unfaithful wife, it's a cheating spouse. The 'cuckold fantasy' thing is an entirely different animal, it seems to be where a husband consents to his wife having sex outside of their marriage, it's essentially like swinging, except it seems the husband may or may not be involved sexually, not 100% sure here.But as you said, if the sex is between consenting adults, who cares; the state has no business telling them what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes. On a hilarious note, the "cuckold fantasy" thing seems to be far more prominent in porn searches for Red states/Conservative areas. But yeah, let them do what they want if it's consensual.
California woman sues Walmart for racism over this common security measure
"Walmart is being sued for racial discrimination. The alleged injustice? Hair products for black people are locked up so they won’t be stolen.
Essie Grundy, a California woman, was shopping for a comb in her local Walmart and noticed that black hair products were locked in a cabinet."
Lol um, I think her anger is focused on the wrong people. This Walmart did not create the circumstances in which these security measures were needed. These are probably some of the hair products that get shoplifted the most. I wonder if this woman ever stopped to ask why that is. People need to stop stealing weaves lol.
It's an uncomfortable truth as to who is doing the weave stealing.
Originally posted by Surtur
California woman sues Walmart for racism over this common security measure[b]"Walmart is being sued for racial discrimination. The alleged injustice? Hair products for black people are locked up so they won’t be stolen.
Essie Grundy, a California woman, was shopping for a comb in her local Walmart and noticed that black hair products were locked in a cabinet."
Lol um, I think her anger is focused on the wrong people. This Walmart did not create the circumstances in which these security measures were needed. These are probably some of the hair products that get shoplifted the most. I wonder if this woman ever stopped to ask why that is. People need to stop stealing weaves lol.
It's an uncomfortable truth as to who is doing the weave stealing. [/B]
My brother in law is a former manager of Walmart. You've got it correctly. Items locked up, tagged with the "alarm" things, all that stuff. It is done based on frequency of theft and value of the object.
Gum is stolen sometimes. But it is not tagged. Financial risk is not high for gum being stolen. But it is for $10-$20 hair products. Because they keep getting stolen.
It's racist to point out that it is racist that black people steal things all the time. Whoever had an issue with this is the true racist. Finding rascism in everything, where it is not even appropriate, means the person is looking too hard at race and is too aware of race which means they are racists. If you're not racist, you do not see race.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's racist to point out that it is racist that black people steal things all the time. Whoever had an issue with this is the true racist. Finding rascism in everything, where it is not even appropriate, means the person is looking too hard at race and is too aware of race which means they are racists. If you're not racist, you do not see race.
Based on a scan from a textbook Surt provided they actually teach that shit in some schools.