Progressive.

Hi, I'm black college student studying human biology and medicine and I am a democrat, but thinking of voting differently next election.

Who decides what progressive means and what progress is?

The discovery of anti-biotics was progressive, the civil rights movement was progressive, Maya Angelou is progressive. So why exactly is having more promiscuous gay sex "progressive"? How exactly is socialism progressive? Why is mass immigration progressive? None of these things do any good.

P.S. Finland is a republic with a 50% tax rate, not socialist republic or a democratic socialism. If you want to look as socialist "republics" go to China, North Korea and Vietnam and if you want actual republics and democracies go to neighbouring Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. These countries, even though they have a wider poor-rich gap still provide better care for their worse off than countries who supposedly value equality.

>>40

Again: Her responsibility. If you had more sexual experience outside of your own hand, you'd understand. It's totally gay that you're escentially looking for someone to blame because some girl you were too much of a nerd to make a move on fucked Johnny the Heroin dealer and got Hep C instead of fucking you and contracting your intellectual faggotry. Your problem is with him, not me.

Okay, so if I show up at your front door with a gang, we tie you to a chain, break your arms and legs, and do all sorts of horrible things to you, that's okay?

That's not the same thing as the debate we're having by any stretch of imagination. I'm actually working on two degrees right now and have done enough study in ethics to know that people call: "SOCIAL CONTRACT" only when it suits them. I can call social contract on a bunch of shit you do that I don't agree with- it amounts to fuck all.

Except your failure.

End yourself, please.

How is it her responsibility? He didn't tell her. Should she have demanded that he hand over his medical records first? What should she have done, exactly?

That's not the same thing as the debate we're having by any stretch of imagination.

Why not?

Hmm, somehow this thread is going nowhere....

First of all, I think progressive (as in progress) could be defined as aiming for something better. First, rules in general were progressive. Some people told others, that "God" wants them to stop acting like total monkeys and that they couldn't go around at simply kill each other.
Also, marriage and monogamy were introduced just because men wanted to control their women. Is it really my child has always been a valid question and in some states in remains today.
Why was gay sex outlawed? Well, I'd say because those Christians  back in the day needed some scape goats in order to define their community better. Also, a society needs to grow. Gay sex does not produce any children (obviously) and a society which is outgrown by other takes a big risk of being destroyed by others who are more productive. Gay sex was simply there for enjoyment, and enjoyment had no place in Puritan ideology.

Under the circumstances back then, some of these rules actually made sense. But today, a lot of things have changed. A society is not necessarily in danger anymore, just because their neighbors are bigger. Also, following the decleration of human rights, all men are equal and are free to do whatever they want. Of course, the founding fathers didn't think of fucking their asses right after signing the Declaration of Independence, but it is just logical, that these things apply to gay, black, whatever, people, too.

So, being progressive means just thinking about the well-being of society imho. Right now, we have the technology to diagnose STDs and the risk of getting infected is a lot lower than it used to be. Also, don't forget that (unless we're talking about rape) sex is a consensual thing. And since both partners know, as they should be at least that educated, that they're taking a risk with having a one-night-stand, I don't really see the problem with it.

>>42

A. Because everyone has a responsibility to themselves to check up on the person they're getting involved with. The signs are always there and secondly: Condoms. Condoms. Condoms.

B. "Why not?" Because two individuals constenting to unprotected or protected sex act is different from a group of individuals constenting to beating your ass up with bike chains. Also: Refer right back to what I said about the convienence of social contracts.

>>29


Dear stupid fucking moron.

The ONLY reason that society gives people with disabilites ANYTHING is because it's too expensive to kill us all. We are the only minority group who is persecuted just for existing!

Unlike fags, niggers, spics, dykes, and all of the mother minority groups who are hated becuase of their behavior, we are hated for no reason at all.

It's  fucking unfair. How would you feel if you had a college degree and no one would hire you simply for being difirent.

>>45
Actually, as cruel as it may sound, "normal" people aren't killing handicapped ones is because today it's affordable not to. Ever heard of wheel-chairs in ancient Greece? It's all about humanity and with economical progress it has suddenly become less expensive (yes, every act of humanity is expensive, and I'm not talking about money alone). And it would definitely not be too expensive to kill all disabled people. Go to your local Walmart, check the prices on bullets and maybe a one way ticket to the cost. The amount of money which has to be used to pay nurses and hospitals in order to take care of retarded people is much higher than that.

>>45

what the fuck are you talking about? did I know you were disabled? nope. was I talking about money that goes to the disabled? nope. anyway- while your situations aren't exactly the same blacks, dykes, spics, niggers and fags have been and will be discriminated against college degree or not as well. what is your fucking point?

>>44
The signs are always there and secondly: Condoms. Condoms. Condoms.

No, the signs are often not there. Also, condoms don't protect against STDs that can be transmitted through kissing or cunnilingus (you use a dental dam, I hope). This is basic sex-ed, for crying out loud.

Because two individuals constenting to unprotected or protected sex act is different from a group of individuals constenting to beating your ass up with bike chains

Ah, but you seem to have the attitude that you don't owe any responsibility to other people. Why can't I break your kneecaps? Nobody owes anyone anything; it's a free-for-all.

When we engage in sex, we acknowledge that there is an inherent risk, but due to the transmission of diseases through drug use and promiscuity, the risk has gone up for everyone. It's several orders of magnitude larger now.

>>48
I have a suggestion for you: Simply don't have sex anymore. If it's that big a risk and you're so afraid of STDs that could be transmitted through kissing, simply shut yourself away in your basement or something.

Your argument is just retarded. As far as I know, the only fatal STDs are AIDS and Hepatitis. And since you're posting here on 4chan, chances are you're not living in a third world country, so the probability of you encountering a person with said diseases is very low in the first place. And the republican you seem to be, the chances for you simply fucking around for pleasure is very low, too.

So, if you do use a condom, don't smear the feces of an infected person all over your face, are a drug addict who is actually stupid enough to use the needles or use knives for foreplay, your risk of getting infected decreases by another big factor.

So, as we're all living in supposedly free countries, you are free to do whatever you want to. But the same thing applies to others. So if I want to go to a club, find a hot chick and fuck her until her eyeballs pop out, what's the big fucking deal?

Oh, I see. Because a small population of fools can't control themselves, everyone else should change their behaviour.

I have a better idea: how about you stop sleeping with a different person every night or week? Is it really that hard to hang on to one person for a year or two? It'd be healthier for everyone (including you). It'd help our medical system too.

>>50
Well, I don't do it that often, but why should I limit myself if I want to? Medical reasons is a really stupid argument. You are in no way threatened by the "fuck-happy" part of society if you don't mix with them, something which you appearently don't want to.
Also, helping the medical system, my ass. It only exists to pay for treating diseases. Also, I think you better start with your cruisade for a better world with the smokers, because smoking has no good effects on the immune system of the body. Sex on the other hand is good for you.

>>48

You can't break my knee caps because I didn't consent to you breaking them. When you have sex without a condom you are consenting to getting an STD. You know the risks, this is the 21st century.

>>50

I don't have to do anything I don't want to do, it's that fucking simple.

Medical reasons is a really stupid argument.

Why?

if you don't mix with them

Impossible. The fuck-happy portion isn't an island; their actions eventually affect everyone else. I suppose the HIV population appeared from nowhere?

I think you better start with your cruisade for a better world with the smokers

This isn't a crusade, and nobody said what the smokers were doing was right either. "They're doing stuff wrong, so I should too!": what fine juvenile logic.

>>53

You sound like a fuckin' wack job.

>>54
Your argument blinds me with its brilliance.

>>55

And you still sound like a fuckin' religious coo-coo in da coconuts wack job.

Amusing tidbit: most people usually refer to me as a faggot liberal. I'm also the guy who was cussing out the Bible in this thread: http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1138297297/15-

How does this fit in with what you believe?

>>57

With irrational stupidity being your religion of choice...yes.

>>58
Elaborate?

Americans are angry. Maybe it's their capitalism.

>>59

The idea that you can't be responsible for you own well being (who you, or any girl has sex with) is idiotic. The idea that you have tell everyone what to do in order the save the world is idiotic and self-defeating. (There is a such thing as natural selection). And your dogmatic approach to this is nothing short of religious zealotry.

>>61
So should we condone people taking intravenous drugs then? After all, it's their body and their responsibility. What if they share needles? If they wish to destroy themselves, who are we to judge? If they also spread disease, we should look the other way?

And I'm not telling anyone what to do. To grossly change Voltaire's quote: I do not agree with your promiscuity, but I'll (probably) defend to the death your right to do it. I reserve the right to think you're irresposible, and collectively dangerous to others.

You really ought to read a bit of Hobbes regarding that natural selection thing too. The natural state of affairs isn't a nice place to live. That's why we got together and decided to live as a society, with laws and all.

>>62

Things weren't so bad in the hunter/gatherer days (although gathering accounted for roughly 85% of food and hunting the remaining 15%,) some archaeological evidence suggests that not only did people live to old ages (60+,) but apparently the elderly were actually cared for quite thoroughly.

We wouldn't have hunted all those ice age animals, both predators and prey, to extinction if things were so bad back then.

Complex societies such as those associated with cities and states only arose as a result of agriculture (specifically, large agricultural surpluses that allowed people to do things other than raising/searching for food,) and that was only within the last 15,000 years.

>>63
And all that was due to cooperation, right?

>>64

Yeah, since most people lived in relatively small, highly mobile family units, they had a natural loyalty to each other, plus a logical loyalty in that they can't survive alone.

>>65

And this still doesn't have anything to do with the subject this loon is talking about. Cooperation is an agreement. Just because *you* say someone's behavior is determental doesn't mean it is. This is what the religious community has done for eons. You're probably the same fucking nut that vomits up these vehement diatribe about eugenics. All this shit is fair and good in theory until YOU'RE on the recieving end of it. Then suddenly "it's not fair" and "you should be able to do whatever you want".

As far as *I'm* concerned? Personal freedoms are put above all else. Cooperation, operating in harmony with your own species, for the benefit of your species is not only completely fucking subjective but- frankly: For the animals.

We are humans. We have personal choice and loyality to no one not even ourselves. You look out for you and yours and I'll do the same.

Just because *you* say someone's behavior is determental doesn't mean it is.

Oh? Are you denying that promiscuity helps spread disease?

Personal freedoms are put above all else.

In short, I can knee-cap you just fine?

>>67
If you want to face the consequences (getting punched back, lawsuit, probably jail and the following social alienation), go ahead

Ah, consquences. And why do we have consequences? Why do we have a law? Why do we have alienation?

>>69
Because people are afraid of what others might do to them. Well, you probably have to decide whether to be all humane and spent millions on rehab programs or to tell people that they can fuck up their lives with drugs but then have to face the consequences... I'd vote for the second way but that's not what the majority of people think

In other words, the law was created by a majority to protect themselves from minorities?

>>69

I'm not >>68, btw. So I'm not the only one who thinks you're head damaged.

I think unprotected promiscuity helps spread disease just like I think unprotected anything spread disease. You gonna start excommunicating people for smoking, eating certain foods, not exercising enough, going outside without a coat, etc? Again: Choices.

What makes you soooooo fucking crazy in the coconut is the connection you keep trying to make between consentual protected sex and non-consentual potentially crippling violence.

Has anyone in the medical field ever referred to you as a "fuckjob"? Did an older brother powerbomb you down a flight of stairs when you were 3? Might want to check your family tree for past account of insane faggotry as well.

U R COO COO! COO COO!

>>71
Yes. Read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The human existence or life in general is all about violence. Look at animals, they just kill each other off, it's pure survival of the fittest. Even in  ancient civilizations it was like that. The (War-)Lord protecting their kingdom/tribe with pure violence. And within societies, it's the exact same thing as well as in todays international politics. The best thing to enforce things is still the army. This might change if states would actually give a fuck about the UN, but we're not there yet.
So in short, of course the majority would want to lead a peaceful life. But if there is a small minority who wants to be evil and gain wealth by exploiting others because it is so much easier (which would be perfectly legitimate in a state without laws), the majority would be fucked. That's the reason for the existence of laws.

consentual protected sex and non-consentual potentially crippling violence.

You do not see the connection between "I do whatever I want cuz I wanna" and crippling someone? The question is whether a responsibility to others exists. If it doesn't, why can't I break someone's legs?

>>73
Oh yeah, just have to add this, "a state without laws" is complete bullshit, because a state only exists because of laws

>>73
The human existence or life in general is all about violence.

The natural state of human existence is violence. By giving up part of their natural rights to a sovereign (whether that be king, parliament, or what not), they can escape this brutish state of affairs.

Hobbes wrote Leviathan after being confronted by the horrors of war. He was not arguing that violence is inevitable, but rather the purpose of social contract.

>>74

Are you daft? I just told you. There's a difference between consentual protected sex and non-consentual potentially crippling violence.

The fact that you keep doggedly trying to equate sex with violence/physical abuse means you've been sexually assualted or have grown up in an environment where sexual assualt is something that you're familar with. What's wrong? Did daddy stick it in a hole he shouldn't have and made mommmy mad? :(

Shut the fuck up already, Tucker Carlson. You fail.