One of the many consequences the political correctness has is the fact that the Europeans, especially those who are born after 1959, merely think and speak what the dictatorship named “political correctness” dictates them via media. And the fact that the Europeans don’t notice that belongs also to the goals of that dictatorship named “political correctness”. 
I voted 4 (obviously), would have voted 2 if it didn’t specify that homosexuals aren’t allowed to publicly express their love, while heterosexuals are. Ironically, it’s claimed in the following sentence that they aren’t to be discriminated. It’s either both or none.
phyllo I guess one could say that allowing people to have sex in public causes undesirable and/or awkward thoughts to appear in minds of observers and distract them while also potentially mentally scarring children. I guess it’s fine to limit people’s actions in public as long as they can do what they want in the privacy of their home.
Doesn’t the same go for the other things I mentioned? I was not trying to be politically correct, and I was also being slightly ironic. You know the texts beneath billboard ads for smoking? They say things like “Smoking causes cancer”, and “Smoking makes your skin look older.” Now in the Netherlands, we also have such a text beneath billboard ads for money loans: “Watch out: borrowing money costs money.” So the problem is not so much incest and the like, as stupidity or ignorance. Of course you shouldn’t drive when you’re drunk.
At this issue, my reasoning capabilities are failing me again. It is not going below my throat.
If you cannot take your kid there or cannot watch that with your parents, it simply means that there must be something such that should be not displayed publically. Again, this again means that would have some negative effect on the society. And, if that is true, why should be allowed?
What if those people would do the same in a small Public Park 24/7, just outside your home? What would you do in that case? Blindfold your children forever? Or, ask the authorities to stop those?
Think again.
You are confused about this issue also.
Laws are required only because all people are not wise enough to behave on their own. Unwiseness of the people is the precursor of laws. If all people would become wise, there would no need of laws whatsoever, neither any police.
with love,
sanjay
Why do you not tell us?
with love,
sanjay
Obe,
That is not the question i asked particularly.
As you cannot satisfy extremists of either side at the same time, no matter how hard you try to adjust, one or other will complain that they are being discriminated. So, the actual issue is what reasoning would you give to the aggravated and unsatisfied party?
Like, A hates liberty and B hates restrictions, while C and D are somewhere in the between. So, no matter what decision would you make, you will not able to satisfy both of A and B at the same time, whether they are in the minority or majority and they complain for being discriminated.
What answer would you give to those complainants?
with love,
sanjay
I think PK will be best person to answer that.
Perhaps, that would niether be ugly nor unpleasant to him and was included in his definition of allowable acts!
with love,
sanjay
imb,
I think this time i got your confusion.
I am asking to take a call two times, not one.
For the first time, one is free to make his choice on his own perception, no matter how he derived that and what it is. Clear.
Then i asked to choose one option from the four.
But, after that, for taking the final or collective call, the only criteria would be the social implications, not the religious ones.
Means, God and issues like salvation, judgment day etc are out of the equation. The final collective decision will not take anything into account but only the long term psychological/financial health of the society. If complete sexual liberty can make society in better shape and satisfied forever, so be it. Religious arguments are not allowed nor liberty would be.
In other words, this argument will not be accepted that we should not allowed complete sexual liberty because we have to face judment day. In the same way, this argument will also not be accepted that we should allow complete sex liberty just becasue we want complete liberty.
So, all boils down to this, whether religious perception has any worth for the society per se, besides religious goals?
And, whether this complete liberty has any worth for the society per se, besides the liberty itself?
I think that would help.
I am not sure in what context are you asking. If you mean whether my first call is based on my religious beliefs or not, the answer is yes. But, i will not use that while arguing for the final decision.
From my perception, not much. the only difference is because of the changed context due to timeline. The basic premises are the still same.
with love,
sanjay
That is what political correctness is, not saying anything clearly in order to keep both parties confused and pleased.
Ask the thief to steal and warn the policeman to stay awake also, so nobody would come blaming you.
I am a ragular smoker and consume about 15 cigrareets per day but i am in favor of banning smoking completely. I have become slave of my habit but if it would not be avilable tomorrow, i would not die either. Though, i may feel uncomfortable for some days but sky would not fall and i ultimately adjust with the situation.
If you feel incest is wrong, go for 3, not 4. But,if you think that their liberty of choice is more important than what is right or wrong and you are no one to tell him, choose 4. Make up your mind.
with love,
sanjay
I am not knowledgeable enough about Europe to comment on that. But, i very clearly mentioned in the OP that there is no need to be politically correct and if any poster do not want to revel his name, he can quitely vote and leave without giving justification. But, let us know clearly where we stand in perception.
With love,
sanjay
To me, that is not discrimination, as far as the definition of the no. 2 is concerned. That is precisely why created no. 3, where homosexuality is socially and legally allowed, just as heterosexuality.
Though, you are free to choose the option of your liking, but from the explanation you gave, i did not underststand why you jumped from 2 to 4, leaving 3 which suited your explanation perfectly?
with love,
sanjay
I must admit I am confused by the vote as of right now. I didn’t think
people would vote for choice #4, everything is legal.
I think because the vote is anonymous people are voting this way.
I suspect if people had to vote publically they would vote more conservatively,
I also think people know how I voted.
Kropotkin
Zinnat, I merely wanted you to know that the fact of the political correctness is a successful instrument of the rulers because it is in the brains of the most (especially of nearly all younger) Europeans, and they even don’t know whether it is in their brains.
Why are you confused by this?
And secondly, voting is useless if not anonymous. That is why i repeated two times that members need not to give any explanation; otherwise we may not get the clear picture.
The one more important fact that neither voters nor politicians know about voting in general, that there is no difference in the behavior of stock market and ballet boxes. Both never reflect present reality but discount only future.
That is precisely the reason why those politicians always struggle who try to sort out real present issues, no matter how wise and honest they may be. And those, who can sell good dreams, become popular, no matter how hollow those dreams may be. And again, this is the very reason why republicans are continuously dragging behind in US and democrats are moving forward.
By definition, being a conservative, republicans cannot be good sellers of dreams ever. And, on the other hand, as the cornerstone of the liberalism is the change itself, thus selling dreams is their default character.
As stock market tries to predict the future performance of the companies, in the same way, voters also try to predict their future. The maximum votes for option no. 4 do not mean that this happens actually in the society in that percentage. It merely means that they think no. 4 is the best choice for their future.
By the way, you should be happy by the poll results as we are becoming more and more liberal by each day.
with love,
sanjay
When you say that heterosexual people are allowed to display their affection for each other in public and homosexuals aren’t, yes, that’s discrimination.
Because 3 was concerned only with homosexuality, while 4 expands on other types of sexual liberty too.
I think that divisions between choices is not quite correct. You probably need something like 8 choices to cover all the possibilities.
You have heter, homo and incest behavior. And legal and moral responses.
Okay, I think I understand the intention behind the thread better. But, sure, maybe I still don’t.
It would seem [to me] that, “in reality”, there either is or there is not a God. And, if there is, we will, supposedly, be judged regarding what we think and feel and do pertaining to behaviors like homosexuality and incest. And that judgment is obviously of enormous importance. Again, because of the potential consequences re immortality, salvation and divine justice.
And I am still confused how someone who believes in a God, the God, their God, could possibly choose an option above that did not correspond with their religious values. After all, one would think that they would think that if everyone embraced those values in turn society would necessarily be better. I know for example that when I was a devout Christian myself, this is how I would think about it. Or, at any rate, this is how Reverend Deardorf had put it.
From my frame of mind, one cannot make a society better or worse – not obectively or essentially or deontologically. All we can do is pool our subjective narratives and try to forge some sort of political consensus revolving around moderation, negotiation and compromise. But then, in choosing option 4 above [as I did], I clearly recognize just how complex and convoluted that would become “in reality”.
And that is before [for me] the implications of “dasein’s dilemma” kicked in.
But that would seem to be predicated in turn on how you think about homosexuality and incest and the relationship between that and how you came to think and feel as you do.
To me, it would be like someone thinking, “Jesus would argue that homosexuality and incest are Sins. And so do I. But I think it would still be more worthwhile for society to allow people to engage in these behaviors anyway.”
Does your point then revolve basically around “separation of church and state”?
Okay, the vote as of now is such that those who chose options 3 and 4 constitute 11 people. And 9 of them chose option 4. Only two folks [including yourself] chose option 1.
So, if, hypothetically, these 15 people represented the entire community, you would go along with the behaviors [the sexual liberties] espoused by the 9 who chose option four?
Even though you might believe that this is not what Jesus would have wanted…and that, as Sins, those behaviors could result in eternal damnation?
But when I asked:
You said:
Which means I am more or less back to being confused about how you arrived at [and then reconcile the components of] your conclusions.
Okay, That is fine.
with love,
sanjay
This is true that those four options are not enough to give all information, but still they can give a broad idea, which is clear from the voting pattern.
with love,
sanjay
How is that what option 4 implies? 4, to me, means that liberty of choice is preserved for behaviors that may not actually be immoral. You’re convinced that incest is categorically immoral, but you’ve yet to say why. You just repeat that it is wrong in slightly different ways.