tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post4639665036369388577..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Santorum on Premarital Sex and ContraceptionStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-32544961782197731572012-02-17T16:15:52.834-08:002012-02-17T16:15:52.834-08:00As Mr. Schneiderman pointed out, we need to distin...As Mr. Schneiderman pointed out, we need to distinguish between behaviors society and humanity can tolerate and others which should be normalized; and how each are and should be treated for greatest effectiveness. Also, as you indicated, framing is extremely important. One of the reasons America's left has been so successful is that they have exhibited superior presentation skills. To be fair, it is much easier to present promises of instant gratification than respect for individual dignity.<br /><br />We would do well to recognize that the premise for our liberty is individuals capable of self-moderating behavior. If an optimal liberty between individuals who may not, and likely do not, all share the same goal, then that is the principle behavior our society and culture should be promoting. And yet, whatever compromise we reach, it must be compatible with both the natural and enlightened orders.<br /><br />The part about "advanced theorists" is interesting. Their conclusion about the nature of sex is purely subjective. An objective conclusion is that sex is principally about procreation. The only people who would accept the first position are individuals who have grown detached from an objective reality and are just killing time awaiting their mortal end. Probably the same people who, on principle, reject the fundamental concept of freewill.<br /><br />Santorum needs to learn to pick and time his fights. He needs to recognize and acknowledge reality. It is far from ideal; but, rejecting it will not improve it.n.nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252447117532342957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-2635853041928154962012-02-17T15:46:31.195-08:002012-02-17T15:46:31.195-08:00There are two orders in our world that are readily...There are two orders in our world that are readily observable: natural and enlightened (i.e. conscious). The first we consider to be objective since we sense it. The second most of us presume to be axiomatic for obvious reasons.<br /><br />Two of the most prominent social issues in recent history were ended through force: slavery and discrimination. Today, as before, consideration for social issues is selective. Also, as before, there were people who did not support it, but also did not oppose it, they were pro-choice.<br /><br />Abortion is not a social issue. It is an issue, as was slavery, concerned with the assignment of dignity to human life. It is also a moral imperative. Today's standard is arbitrary and even perverse.<br /><br />Homosexual behavior is not a social issue. It is an issue concerned with evolutionary fitness. It is worth separating the individuals from their behavior. For the former, their individual dignity should be preserved. For the latter, their behavior offers no discernible value to either society or humanity. Furthermore, we know male homosexual behavior increases risk of disease, especially when combined with promiscuous behavior. There may be reason to tolerate this behavior, but there is no legitimate reason to normalize it.<br /><br />Contraception and the promiscuous behavior it promotes is not a social issue. It is an issue concerned with biological integrity and the general Welfare of our society. It should certainly not receive incentive through involuntary exploitation (e.g. taxation).<br /><br />There are clear and objective standards by which to judge these so-called "social" issues. While their treatment may coincide with right-wing positions, they are not exclusively justified by them.<br /><br />If anything, the denigration of individual dignity and devaluation of human life conducted by so-called civil and human rights businesses should be a greater concern for anyone who considers those issues to bear merit for themselves and humanity in general. Whereas there was cause for them originally, they have since proceeded to another, more progressive extreme.<br /><br />Individuals who benefit from fulfillment of instant gratification, and others who are hesitant to oppose them on objective principles, will remain pro-choice until they are forced to make a choice.<br /><br />That said, there are issues, whether moral or biological, which will not be, and cannot be, sustainably resolved through force, without addressing their underlying causes. A prominent example is voluntary consumption of psychotropic drugs and other means to, ostensibly, escape reality, if only for a short time.n.nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252447117532342957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-8890444231296134862012-02-17T12:35:44.578-08:002012-02-17T12:35:44.578-08:00Whatever Romney is doing, it has nothing to do wit...Whatever Romney is doing, it has nothing to do with Private Equity. It's a real shame how the media and Hollywood have duped so many people. I am sick of spelling it out for people. When a PE company buys a company it's usually because it's a good business that's not doing well for some reason (and that means sometimes you have to fire people or shut down an outdated business)or wants to expand, but they do not have the capacity. There is no way to "creatively destruct." That is a Hollywood fantasy. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. In spite of the newsmedia, PE and Bain in particular have created millions of jobs and billions of dollars for investors - not just fat cats, but pensions and foundations (it's from working at foundations I understand these investments). Mitt Romney isn't Gordon Gecko or Richard Gere in pretty woman. Anyone who thinks that's what Private Equity does is an idiot.<br /><br />As far as Santorum goes, I don't like him and he's too far right in his beliefs. However, I find it strange, and I don't want to sound conspiratory, that at the ABC debates a few months ago, Sawyer and Stephanopoulus kept pressing contraception as an issue people wanted to "ban." All of the candidates were scratching their heads as to where this subject was coming from. Then suddenly Obama makes contraception coverage mandatory and the media and lib outfits frames the subject as "pro or anti-woman/contraception" to obscure the fact that it's about paying for it and coverage. And suddenly, as usual, women's "health" is on the line. And if you don't agree with them you're anti woman!<br /><br />What a coincidence...CatherineMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909616844180482228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-15999941461972092082012-02-17T11:15:27.890-08:002012-02-17T11:15:27.890-08:00Santorum's biggest problem is that he can be a...Santorum's biggest problem is that he can be a jerk. <br /><br />And so, Kirpatrick & Lockhart's political construct stands astride the world like a...a...pinata.<br /><br />Seriously, the man's tone deaf with constituents. Romney will beat him in the primaries.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.com