Conservative vs Libertarian... Round One... DEBATE!

[Deleted member 88]

There’s also the issue of letting those without sin cast the first stone.

Conservatives are not nearly as condemnatory towards premarital sex or sex in entertainment as they used to be.

Both due to losing the cultural fights over them, and because well few conservatives can admit to being blameless-when either it comes to what they got up to before they settled down and married or what they watch in movies or TV or whatever.

So for large aspects of the sexual revolution-premarital sex, sex in entertainment(not specially pornography), cohabitation-conservatives have in the past thirty years become more relaxed and have concluded that these behaviors can not be practically prevented and they themselves are guilty so they cannot condemn them.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

conservatives have in the past thirty years become more relaxed and have concluded that these behaviors can not be practically prevented and they themselves are guilty so they cannot condemn them.

Biting the bullet unnecessarily in my opinion, and a very un-Christian way of looking at things to boot. There's nothing hypocritical in believing that some social ill should be eliminated and also admitting that you struggle with it yourself. In fact, to my mind that makes your advocacy even more credible, not less, since you're self-admittedly going against your own revealed proclivities. If someone admits to you that they struggle with porn addiction, are they a hypocrite if they want to bring the hammer of the state down on porn? Of course not—they simply have first-hand experience with the social ill, and their advocacy becomes that much more credible and praiseworthy.

Is self-improvement hypocritical? Isn't it a good thing that people don't feel shackled to their own vices forever?

 

[Deleted member 88]

I entirely agree, though the left and liberals would argue that doing so is an expression of some Freudian repression.

(Which is itself something conservatives have never satisfactorily addressed-the notion that repression is unhealthy as Freud defined it).

To answer your question-yes I think it would make it more credible.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Before I log off for the night, I'm gonna release one more volley into the libertarian camp on the poverty of the idea that all you need for society to work is for people not to initiate force against each other (in libertarian philosophy they call this the "Non-Agression Principle," or NAP).

The issue is that "force" and "initiate" are impossible to define neutrally in the context of human behavior. Humans interact with one another based on norms. That is why, under normal circumstances, my initiating conversation with you on the street would not be considered an initiation of force; simply put, doing that doesn't violate norms. A libertarian might then say that, consequently, talking is NEVER an initiation of force. But that's simplistic. What about the content of what I'm saying? (Is it a death threat, either oblique or overt?) What about other issues? (Proximity, volume, and repetition?) It's easy to see why some versions of talking could be seen as an initiation of force. Which ones? Libertarian theory can't tell us, but shared norms can.

A Hindu libertarian who believes in reincarnation might think you were initiating force against him by barbecuing steaks on a shared patio. You might think the same thing about his incense coming through your chared ventilation system. Who's right? If your only principle is that force not be initiated, then neither of you are. There are, however, other candidates for ethical principle-making. The West's (up until recently) has been the idea that human beings are created in God's image, and that Scripture, philosophy, and Natural Law set out corollaries from that first principle that will enable/force people who accept them to treat each other well. This is the foundation for the world's most humane set of shared norms, and the best thing about these norms is that they're based on real-life situations, rather than abstractions like "force" and "initiation."

When two siblings are squabbling in the back seat of the car, a parent will often tell them to calm down, and they'll both often respond by saying that it was the other one who truly started it. The problem for libertarian theory is that, in that moment, they're both telling the truth. They both really think the other one started it. They view their own actions as non-initiations of force, and those of their twin, or their kid sister, or whoever, as honest-to-God casus belli.

Nobody's very good at being objective on the question of whether their conduct, or that of their rival, "started it." As Haidt pointed out, our initial processing of events is rhetorical, designed to get people on our side, and then only later do we use analytical thinking to buttress the case which we've already decided is entirely just, and entirely ours.

Libertarianism has no answer to this.

 

[Prince Ire]

The major argument for conservatives adopting libertarian beliefs in regards to government (not in regards to morality) is a practical one. The conservatives have lost and surrendered nearly every cultural battle except abortion and guns, and even then, conservatives are in a holding pattern. Every major institution that isn't explicitly conservative or libertarian is at least implicitly liberal. If you start advocating for a bigger government, you are just handing tools to the leftists of the future to oppress you with, in hopes that they might be usable now. There is one good defense, and that is removing the government's power to oppress you.

Except libertarianism is itself merely a form of liberalism. Conservatives have tried allying with libertarians since at least the times of Thatcher and Reagan, and IMO the alliance formed long before. What has conservatism had to show for this? Absolutely nothing. It has lost every cultural battle because its libertarian "allies" have sold it out in every battle in exchange for freer markets and less economic regulations as a concession from the progressive liberals. Where has the "right" succeeded over the decades? On economics, never on social issues.

And conservatives aren't being fooled by the spectre of big government anymore. Can big government be an oppressive force, an enemy of church and family, religion and cutlure? Of course. But so can big business, and thankfully more and more conservatives are coming around to that fact. Big business and the free market has always been an enemy of conservative values, because conservatives values like family and religion get in the way of profit. More conservatives need to wake up to the fact that big business and the libertarian free market are not their friends, and are indeed more likely to be their enemies than the government is.

 

[Terthna]

There’s also the issue of letting those without sin cast the first stone.

Conservatives are not nearly as condemnatory towards premarital sex or sex in entertainment as they used to be.

Both due to losing the cultural fights over them, and because well few conservatives can admit to being blameless-when either it comes to what they got up to before they settled down and married or what they watch in movies or TV or whatever.

So for large aspects of the sexual revolution-premarital sex, sex in entertainment(not specially pornography), cohabitation-conservatives have in the past thirty years become more relaxed and have concluded that these behaviors can not be practically prevented and they themselves are guilty so they cannot condemn them.

Which ultimately means that, aside from some holdouts on the right like Certified_Heterosexual, most of the condemnation sex workers receive now comes from the regressive left. They say it's because prostitution as a profession abuses women, but their actions which almost universally come down on said women betray their real feelings; that it is an unwanted competitor for female feminists who want to use the possibility of having sex with them to lure men into doing what they want.

For example; years ago there was this social media app that women were using to go into business for themselves as prostitutes, which neatly bypassed some of the issues usually associated with the profession. They could screen their clients better, avoid having to ply their trade on the streets, and bypass having to deal with pimps entirely. When the regressive left caught wind of this, they instigate a massive campaign to get it shut down, accusing the app of facilitation the oppression of women. It quickly succeed, and something that was being used to solve many of the problems professional sex workers have with their industry was lost, forcing them to go back to the old abusive system; not that the regressive left cared, as they had already moved on to some other issue.

 

[King Krávoka]

Anyone who suggests that prositution should be legitimatized, at any level, is committing an act of treason and here's the sequence of events stemming from that which makes me say this:

1. Prostitution is legalized
2. It will be normalized.
3. It becomes a billion-dollar industry.
4. To increase profits, the sex-industrial complex engineers society to use it as the main sexual outlet instead of just a treatment for horny.
5. "Brides for hire" become normalized.
6. When general AI is invented (already happened), the human end is replaced with beings who have no freedom to be involved in anything else.
7. When Rory Gates makes his bid for doomlord, he will issue free robot concubines to anyone who joins his personal army.

In summary "Cortana" is production foreshadowing and I cannot believe that the right wing has become so depraved as to apologize for this abomination.

 

[Fleiur]

So go ahead and judge it. As long as you don't try to regulate it you're free to judge it to your heart's content. Just don't get all offended on me if I judge your dumb-ass religion.

It's objective reality. Free love has been proven to destroy societies. If that lines up with my religion, it's a credit to that religion.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

When Rory Gates makes his bid for doomlord, he will issue free robot concubines to anyone who joins his personal army.

Is programming a sapient sexbot so that it always wants sex a violation of the NAP?

 

[King Krávoka]

Is programming a sapient sexbot so that it always wants sex a violation of the NAP?

Years ago I concluded that you have to believe that someone's soul exists before their body does, for the creation of any sapient life to not be a violation of the NAP.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I can understand @Certified_Heterosexual opposition to the unshaming of prostitution. Once something is no longer shamed, it becomes celebrated which encourages more people to join. I have heard, not sure if true btw, of lots of women joining OnlyFans to get rich which means that tons of girls have now become for all intents and purposes prostitutes. If true? This will only grow thus you have a situation where in the future, all girls are basically prostitutes.

So men have to accept to either stay and be alone or accept their girlfriends fucking around on them for money and being on OnlyFans.

You can't even say that good parenting would make them not do that as good parenting nowadays is drag kids.

 

[Terthna]

I can understand @Certified_Heterosexual opposition to the unshaming of prostitution. Once something is no longer shamed, it becomes celebrated which encourages more people to join. I have heard, not sure if true btw, of lots of women joining OnlyFans to get rich which means that tons of girls have now become for all intents and purposes prostitutes. If true? This will only grow thus you have a situation where in the future, all girls are basically prostitutes.

So men have to accept to either stay and be alone or accept their girlfriends fucking around on them for money and being on OnlyFans.

You can't even say that good parenting would make them not do that as good parenting nowadays is drag kids.

And yet none of that has anything to do with how prostitutes are treated by society, because they're still being shamed just as much as they ever were.

 

[Fleiur]

So men have to accept to either stay and be alone or accept their girlfriends fucking around on them for money and being on OnlyFans.

Men will never be satisfied. They want whores until they're cheated on. And then they go MGTOW.

 

[Captain X]

Like @Lord Invictus I regard myself as a member of the traditional right who fully supports prostitution—in almost all traditional societies it was a legal, if sharply circumscribed, as a safety valve under the principle of minimising harm and social disruption, and in many religions outside of the Abrahamic traditions it was a sacred act of worship of the Almighty. It is inherently less demeaning and destructive to the moral order of society than porn and would be much better for society than legal porn. So let’s stop assuming there’s only two viewpoints on this issue. Banning porn and legalising prostitution is a morally defensible if admittedly rare position, as well.

And I'll never understand an the attitude anyone has against porn (this topic has been previously discussed at length on this forum, and I have no desire to have the same arguments again), but to support prostitution while wanting to ban porn is a new one for me, and that much more bewildering. In any case, not a viewpoint I could ever share.

What a joke. Libertarian ideology, like other branches of Leftism, is fundamentally disconnected from humanity, possibly even moreso. Whereas at least Leftists feel some solidarity towards the wretched of the earth (at the expense of their fellow countrymen, granted), libertarians see everything through their ideology, supporting all manner of harmful projects, from globalization, mass immigration, and sexual libertinism, as long as individuals are free to debase and destroy themselves and the economy keeps growing. For them, valuing ones ethnic group, religious and cultural traditions are irrational, and only acceptable if voluntary—forgetting that our particular placement in a nation, family and time is completely outside of human control.

You seem to be really confused about what libertarianism is if you think it in any way supports globalization or open borders. To be fair, I've seen commies claim to be libertarian, but just as the majority of antifa's members claim to be anachist, they are two diametrically opposed ideologies that are incompatible with one another. Libertarianism focuses one individualism and tends toward isolationism as a result of wanting limited government. I am totally all for sexual liberation, though. Only moral busybodies far too concerned with controlling the lives of others are against it. People being more free in no way keeps those who wish to marry and establish the classic nuclear family you're obsessed with from doing so, and frankly most Americans are still going to choose to do just that if they can find a partner in life to do that with.

The fact that Right-Liberalism, with it's focus on industrialism, individualism, profit and progress has become synonymous with Conservatism, which when functional, is really about kith and kin, soil and soul, demonstrates the degree to which the Right has been led astray by the Enlightenment ideologies of liberte and egalite.

Somehow I'm not surprised you'd want to turn back the clock on the Enlightenment. If you find yourself dissatisfied with living in a Constitutional republic, feel free to leave for a more theocratic state that doesn't value these important concepts you seem to loath. Unfortunately, all the ones I can think of are Islamic, so good luck finding one that fits your particular religion.

That's just a fancy way of saying "my morals are arbitrary."

No they aren't. That's just a fantasy some religious people seem to have. Our morals are based on those of our parents and in a wider sense by the society we live in, which is as close as they get to being arbitrary, which is to say they are about as arbitrary as those religious people have.

Nope, it's all based on logic. An omniscient being is one which knows the correct answer to all logically valid inquiries. Therefore, an omniscient being is by definition incapable of being incorrect.

It is laughable to claim anything based on a religious ideology is based in logic in any way. Religion is all about having faith, which is to say belief without any kind of proof. It's been a while since I read it, but I do seem to recall Christ saying something along the lines of "blessed is he who believes without seeing" after bringing Lazarus back to life in answer to a skeptic. This is part of why I'll never get this irrational need for validation certain religious folk seem to have by attempting to prove stories from the Bible. If you want to believe in something, go ahead and believe in it - just don't expect me to go along with it.

So... why are some morals "common sense," and others not? What materialistic grounds do you have for saying that anything is just bad, full stop?

Generally in how it causes harm to others. This is why we tend to agree on things like killing, stealing, bearing false witness and the like as being bad, but not a lot of the other things religious folk seem to concern themselves in the business of others with.

 

[Captain X]

Biting the bullet unnecessarily in my opinion, and a very un-Christian way of looking at things to boot. There's nothing hypocritical in believing that some social ill should be eliminated and also admitting that you struggle with it yourself.

It is if you are demanding others change while being unable to yourself, even if you claim to be "struggling" with it.

In fact, to my mind that makes your advocacy even more credible, not less, since you're self-admittedly going against your own revealed proclivities. If someone admits to you that they struggle with porn addiction, are they a hypocrite if they want to bring the hammer of the state down on porn? Of course not—they simply have first-hand experience with the social ill, and their advocacy becomes that much more credible and praiseworthy.

Not with me, since they are asking others to essentially quit cold turkey while being unable to themselves. Of course this would be a non-argument for me anyway because there is no way I'd ever go for a ban on porn.

Is self-improvement hypocritical? Isn't it a good thing that people don't feel shackled to their own vices forever?

Of course not. Feel free to improve yourself in whichever way you see fit. Just don't demand others do so, and especially don't force them to "improve" through legislation.

Before I log off for the night, I'm gonna release one more volley into the libertarian camp on the poverty of the idea that all you need for society to work is for people not to initiate force against each other (in libertarian philosophy they call this the "Non-Agression Principle," or NAP).

Barking up the wrong tree with me. I know some libertarians are big on it, but there are many different types of libertarian. Of course I'm not a "privatize everything" libertarian either, though I am an "every gun law is an infringement" libertarian. My general philosophy in life is essentially "don't want none, don't start none," and "as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I don't really care."

Libertarianism has no answer to this.

That straw man you made doesn't have an answer, anyway.

I can understand @Certified_Heterosexual opposition to the unshaming of prostitution. Once something is no longer shamed, it becomes celebrated which encourages more people to join.

This does not follow. This has to be one of the more absurd arguments I've seen, partly because, while I could never see any aspect of the sex industry becoming particularly celebrated by society as a whole, even if it did, all that really gets out of me is "so what?" But be that as it may, simply ceasing to shame someone over something does not mean it will become celebrated. If I stop shaming my buddy over something stupid he did while he was drunk, that doesn't mean I'm cheering on whatever he did, it just means I'm not giving him shit about it anymore.

I have heard, not sure if true btw, of lots of women joining OnlyFans to get rich which means that tons of girls have now become for all intents and purposes prostitutes. If true? This will only grow thus you have a situation where in the future, all girls are basically prostitutes.

Classic argumentum ad absurdum, much like your last "argument" that legalizing prostitution and not shaming people over it (can't really see legislating that, so feel free to keep being an asshole even if it gets legalized), this simply does not follow. There are indeed women making money by selling nudes of themselves, but that does not make them prostitutes, as, at least as I define them, it requires having sex with a person who has paid for this as a service. The thing is, how much money depends on how popular they are, and how willing their customers are to part with their money, so basically it's the free market in action. Which is why some of them have gotten pretty mad over someone using a 3D anime character to out-earn a lot of them.

You can't even say that good parenting would make them not do that as good parenting nowadays is drag kids.

Only among SJWs.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

And yet none of that has anything to do with how prostitutes are treated by society, because they're still being shamed just as much as they ever were.

Not really. They are not as shamed as they used to be. They are celebrated with people calling it empowering until the next day they change their mind and call it objectification.

At any rate, you haven't really disputed my point.

Men will never be satisfied. They want whores until they're cheated on. And then they go MGTOW.

Nah. Generally, men want women they are with to be sluts for them and only them. Thats pretty much it. Whores are just other women that don't matter to them.

edit: To clarify on the whore part.

Probably should have worded myself better on the whore part. They are basically women, men want to have sex with and pay them for it but have no feelings towards them.

At any rate, its pretty clear that women and men can't understand each other and this feeling will only grow. I'm fine with that. To hell with women and bring on the companion bots is what I say. Women can have their own companion bots even.

I'm far more egalitarian then women cause women have made comments about banning bots cause dirty, filthy men may be happy.

This does not follow. This has to be one of the more absurd arguments I've seen, partly because, while I could never see any aspect of the sex industry becoming particularly celebrated by society as a whole, even if it did, all that really gets out of me is "so what?" But be that as it may, simply ceasing to shame someone over something does not mean it will become celebrated. If I stop shaming my buddy over something stupid he did while he was drunk, that doesn't mean I'm cheering on whatever he did, it just means I'm not giving him shit about it anymore.


Classic argumentum ad absurdum, much like your last "argument" that legalizing prostitution and not shaming people over it (can't really see legislating that, so feel free to keep being an asshole even if it gets legalized), this simply does not follow. There are indeed women making money by selling nudes of themselves, but that does not make them prostitutes, as, at least as I define them, it requires having sex with a person who has paid for this as a service. The thing is, how much money depends on how popular they are, and how willing their customers are to part with their money, so basically it's the free market in action. Which is why some of them have gotten pretty mad over someone using a 3D anime character to out-earn a lot of them.


Only among SJWs.

Your entire post is coming off as if I'm supporting @Certified_Heterosexual . I'm not. I'm just saying that I can understand his reasoning.

And to be frank, your use of "argumentum ad absurdum" means jack shit to me. People cried about "Slippery slope" fallacy and how stupid it is and yet look where we are now.

And the drag kids and drag people reading in libraries is fully supported by the government, schools and media.

 

[Captain X]

Not really. They are not as shamed as they used to be. They are celebrated with people calling it empowering until the next day they change their mind and call it objectification.

Actually they're just two different kinds of feminist - sex posititive vs sex negative. The current loudest ones are the sex negative crowd, who belong to the intersectionalist identity politics crowd.

At any rate, you haven't really disputed my point.

Which was?

Nah. Generally, men want women they are with to be sluts for them and only them. Thats pretty much it. Whores are just other women that don't matter to them.

Wow, that manages to be sexist against both men and women at the same time.

Your entire post is coming off as if I'm supporting @Certified_Heterosexual . I'm not. I'm just saying that I can understand his reasoning.

I just addressed what you yourself said. You made two ridiculous arguments that essentially consisted of "if we don't make prostitution illegal, all girls will grow up to be prostitutes."

And to be frank, your use of "argumentum ad absurdum" means jack shit to me.

I don't know much Latin either, but we are on the internet.

People cried about "Slipper slope" fallacy and yet look where we are now.

With what specifically?

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Actually they're just two different kinds of feminist - sex posititive vs sex negative. The current loudest ones are the sex negative crowd, who belong to the intersectionalist identity politics crowd.

I know. There are feminists who jump from one side to the other. Even media do this. One day they praise sex positive, another day, they are negative.

Which was?

You're not Terthna.

Wow, that manages to be sexist against both men and women at the same time.

So saying that men want the women they are with to be full of passion and lust for them and wanting to do dirty sex is sexist now? Thats what I meant by slut. You know, to be slutty? lol.

Probably should have worded myself better on the whore part. They are basically women, men want to have sex with and pay them for it but have no feelings towards them.

I just addressed what you yourself said. You made two ridiculous arguments that essentially consisted of "if we don't make prostitution illegal, all girls will grow up to be prostitutes."


I don't know much Latin either, but we are on the internet.

Yes, yes. What i said is bullshit just like how the Slippery slope is bullshit cause you can use fancy words .

Even though, the Slippery slope has become true. We should just ignore it.

Whatever man. I'm not out to convince you about anything. I just said my peace about what I thought of Certified's opinion about prostitution.

With what specifically?

Now you are just pretending to be ignorant.

 

[Fleiur]

If you want to believe in something, go ahead and believe in it - just don't expect me to go along with it.

People advocating religious values in the public square do so because they have their own internal logic and are proven to be objectively true in certain aspects.

Are marriages more or less happy than they were in the 50s?

 

[Captain X]

So saying that men want the women they are with to be full of passion and lust for them and wanting to do dirty sex is sexist now? Thats what I meant by slut. You know, to be slutty? lol.

Words mean things. Usually it's the regressive left I have to explain that to.

Probably should have worded myself better on the whore part. They are basically women, men want to have sex with and pay them for it but have no feelings towards them.

Yeah, it's the generalization there I have problems with. You actually sound not unlike an intersectional feminist now, who basically demonize male sexuality.

Yes, yes. What i said is bullshit just like how the Slippery slope is bullshit cause you can use fancy words .

What you said is bullshit because the second part of your arguments do not logically follow from the first part. You are arguing an absurdity that sounds like something straight out of a moral panic.

Even though, the Slippery slope has become true. We should just ignore it.

What slippery slope? To what are you referring to, specifically? All I have to go off of are your two weird arguments, one of which is invalid because prostitution remains illegal in basically all but one state in this country, and the other incorrectly defines prostitutes and purports that all girls will grow up to be one.

Now you are just pretending to be ignorant.

No, you just aren't making your arguments very well, and in this specific case, you haven't even defined what it is. What slippery slope argument are you talking about? It certainly isn't one I made.

People advocating religious values in the public square do so because they have their own internal logic and are proven to be objectively true in certain aspects.

Religion can certainly have a kind of "truth" to it, but not objective truth. It can only be subjective and based on what your beliefs are.

Are marriages more or less happy than they were in the 50s?

That's an interesting question that depends entirely on the honesty of the people reporting it. I don't much know or really care, for that matter. I do know that there's really nothing a man gets out of the deal (in fact he is taking a significant risk), and that's one of the things that needs to change to make things more equal as well as to encourage more people to get married.