I have written additional words at this sift, if you are interested.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

The stuff I've read seems to implicate this guy as an attention seeker. That doesn't exonerate Brad Manning. Also, as slinky and weasel-like as this guy seems, the mob doesn't strike me as morally superior in this case.

Heh, this showed up on the Sift just the next day after I started giving serious consideration to joining the O.T.O.

As it happens, it's the only serious initiatory order with a presence within three hundred miles, so far as I can find. And, having bought a copy of Crowley's Thoth Tarot years ago, I've finally begun seriously studying it. Beautiful artwork, profound symbolism.>> ^gwiz665:

Ultimately Crowley was as hypocritical as the religions he disliked though, creating his own based on Magick and weirdness. As usual the small cults are based on hedonism and sex, and while everyone likes that, it doesn't make for intellectual honesty. Magick isn't real.


Crowley repeatedly cautioned against ascribing objective reality to the phenomena experienced in the practice of magic. Which is why he phrased the first goal of magic in such a ridiculous fashion as "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." It is absurd, precisely in order to remind seekers that ascribing objective reality to such theories is always absurd. He did all sorts of things like this. He asked followers, for instance, to align their rituals so that "East" in the books always faced his home--indirectly indicating that it was entirely arbitrary what direction one faces.

People who assiduously practice magick really do have visions; experience communication with demons, angels, and gods; experience mystic transport; and realize the integration of the self. The reality of the experience trumps, for Crowley, any "objective" claims.

>> ^enoch:

"do what thou whilt may it harm none" was a traditional pagan saying

Eh, not really. Most pagans prior to the rise of Christianity would have shuddered at the statement, aside from a handful of obscure philosophers. Certainly not Plato, Pythagoras, or any of the other pagan writers so often accorded great spiritual insight.

Though such formulations do begin to make an appearance whenever Paganism arises in post-Christian contexts.

Hopefully it wont be as bad as the Legend of the Seeker adaptation of the Sword of Truth series. Granted, that series ends up being kind of a piece of shit. But at least it started out well. The tv series though, makes it a totally shittier shitbag.

This biker is clearly nothing more than a thrill seeker. He obviously planned this out and was exactly where he wanted to be at just the right time. Badass dude!

>> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^demon_ix:
As someone who is currently receiving treatment for depression, all I can say is Fuck you very much, Mr. Gervais. If you really think saying "snap out of it" is enough, you have no idea wtf you're talking about.
Also, I never thought you were funny.

As someone who was receiving treatment for serious, clinical depression for two years and was rendered genuinely pyschologically non-functional, I completely agree with Gervais.
"Snap out of it" isn't the gist of what Gervais is saying here, but rather that celebrities are fucknuts. "Depression" is not synonymous with "feeling a bit under the rain this week, I might as well milk a few hundred K out of an exclusive interview with Who Gives a Fuck Daily". Depression is a serious issue that's trivialized by these cocklords whose only life interest is their own vapid, superficial prosperity, clamoring for attention and publicity in whatever forms they can find.
I'm not denying that some "celebrities" might well be under the influence of deep depression but, at the same time, my sympathy melts away right around the point that they start publishing books and giving interviews. That's the problem with attention-seekers - they'll use anything in their life as arsenal to get more people to look at them.


I don't doubt for a minute that there are narcissistic attention whores out there that use their problems as a way of staying in the spotlight, I'm still not sure how you can tell the difference between an "attention-seeker" and someone who's genuine about sharing their experiences. How about a few examples, name someone you see as an attention whore and then someone who you think is genuine, I'd be interested in knowing what the difference is.
When it comes to mental illness I think silence is one of the biggest killers and if doing an interview or writing a book helps people and brings attention to the issue then bully for them I say.
As for Gervais I don't hate the guy, I think he's a pretty funny and sometimes I give comedians (especially good ones) a break on saying outrageous crap, hell if they don't piss me off every now and again I start to think that they're slacking off. Also I could forgive it as pretty much everyone suffers a case of foot-in-mouth disease every now and again, luckily most of us don't have the means to broadcast it to millions.
Also, westy, you still seem to be under the impression that all working class people just stoically soldier on when they get these problems, a heart-attack doesn't care whether you have time for it or not it just happens. Depression is the same way, you get so depressed that you can't do anything anymore, maybe you lose your job or your family, or your life.

>> ^demon_ix:
As someone who is currently receiving treatment for depression, all I can say is Fuck you very much, Mr. Gervais. If you really think saying "snap out of it" is enough, you have no idea wtf you're talking about.
Also, I never thought you were funny.


As someone who was receiving treatment for serious, clinical depression for two years and was rendered genuinely pyschologically non-functional, I completely agree with Gervais.

"Snap out of it" isn't the gist of what Gervais is saying here, but rather that celebrities are fucknuts. "Depression" is not synonymous with "feeling a bit under the rain this week, I might as well milk a few hundred K out of an exclusive interview with Who Gives a Fuck Daily". Depression is a serious issue that's trivialized by these cocklords whose only life interest is their own vapid, superficial prosperity, clamoring for attention and publicity in whatever forms they can find.

I'm not denying that some "celebrities" might well be under the influence of deep depression but, at the same time, my sympathy melts away right around the point that they start publishing books and giving interviews. That's the problem with attention-seekers - they'll use anything in their life as arsenal to get more people to look at them.

Tags for this video have been changed from '70s, 1971, evil, bastards, New, Seekers, song' to '70s, 1971, evil, bastards, New, Seekers, song, coke' - edited by Sagemind

The big brown lopsided ball is the quaffle. Chasers try to put that through a hoop for 10 points. The medium size dark balls are bludgers, which chase after people and try to hit them.
The little one is the golden snitch. If the seeker catches it, he gets 150 points and the game ends. Usually whichever team catches the snitch first wins. Harry is seeker. The whole game is basically a metaphor for harry's role in the stuggle against voldemort. When Krum catches the golden snitch but still loses the quiddich world cup by 10 points, that foreshadows phyrric victory in the little hangleton graveyard.

The thrill seekers. It's not EIA if you have skills to handle the stunt and you live to procreate.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
*promote

I think very few of these cops are actually evil or have any ill intent towards the public's right to assembly. They're just stupid.

What do you expect from a group of people with barely a high school education who are asked to deal regularly with psychologically distressing situations? These are not people who have the intellectual depth to make sense of their day to day lives. These are people pushed to the edge of primal instinct by the nature of their jobs. Then you give them an order to carry out maneuvers that they've been trained to perform without thought and set them up with the psychological mindset that everyone not wearing a uniform is the enemy. If you ask them to intellectualize the situation they're in, they're too dumb to do anything but scowl at you and make threats.

Cops acting stupidly is not the root of the problem. They're the symptom of a problem that's resulted from the slow deterioration of your liberties by well intentioned bureaucrats over decades.

Furthermore, these morons facing off in the street against cops are nothing more than thrill seekers. If you actually care about reversing the legal minimalisation of your right to assemble then the only effective way is through legislation. That's how your rights were taken away and that's the only way to get them back.

I found something that you absolutely must watch. I found it tonight by chance and thought it pertained to our discussion perfectly and it's spoken beautifully. I think it will help you understand some of what I've explained that I might not have had the best words for and it should help clear up your thoughts on what atheists are not saying. (P.S. I'm not implying that you're saying that I should be more open minded, it just happened to be the prime relation point in the video). I implore you to watch it a few times.

Open-mindedness (youtube link)

To continue our discussion; I think that what we actually disagree on is the definition of "truth".

You're saying that truth is subjective; meaning that truth is contingent on the presence of a mind.

I'm saying that truth is objective; meaning that truth it exists outside of mind and that we can know it through the tools of logic, reason, and the scientific method.

The reason that I say that truth is objective, not contingent on a mind, is that if it were subjective, you could have two truths which contradict each other and then you'd be left with a paradoxes.

I think that you're boyfriend/girlfriend analogy is a good one because it helps proves a point.

That being that there is no such thing as "more true" when analyzing multiple claims. "More true" is a misnomer

It is a claim for the girlfriend to say that she feels heartbreak.
It is a claim for the boyfriend to say that he does not feel heartbreak.

The logical reason why they can both be true in their claims is that both claims are independent of one another. More important than knowing that both are true is to know why both claims can logically be true at the same time. Neither claim is dependent or contingent on the other claim in order to be true.

With the concept of subjective truth, if I were to consider what I believe as "my truths", what need would I have to question whether or not they are true? I mean, if they're my truths then that means that they're already true, no need to evaluate them. If everything that I believed was subjectively "my truth", then how would I distinguish functional reality from "my reality"? If truth is subjective, how could I determine how large or small my world is verses the rest of the world? What would I do when I come to a truth claim that contradicts my truth claim? How can something be true for me and the contradictory be true at the same time for someone else? Most importantly, how can I define reality if all truth is subjective? Furthermore, if only some truth is subjective, then how do we know what is subjectively true and what is objectively true? I'm sure that you can see that there are a lot of problems with the concept of subjective truth.

A huge key point that I wish to address:

You said "for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility"

I cannot agree with that statement at all. Besides my disagreement that truth is relative; for someone to be insulted by someone contesting a truth claim means that the person insulted has more invested in believing the claim rather than in caring whether or not the claim is true or not. Furthermore, if someone mistakingly holds a lie to be truth and you know that it's a lie and lead them to understand why their believed claim is false, you're helping that person to avoid any potential pitfalls associated with the lie; I cannot see how that is an exercise in futility.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.