4 ms·

> Hmm, I do not understand your position then. You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to under

> Hmm, I do not understand your position then. You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there? > then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation. If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.

foldr 2y ago
Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth. > I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position. Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue. But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it. If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.
  - foldr 2y ago
    If you really just want to know why some US states have anti-sodomy laws that aren’t enforced (and that most people don’t want to enforce), then it’s a pretty simple story. The laws were made a long time ago when attitudes were different. Then the laws were all ruled unconstitutional in 2003, meaning that there hasn’t been any strong incentive to repeal them in the time since.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      See, now that is a solid, logical, good faith response (if not a duplicate of what you already said earlier, and what I already acknowledged as being reasonable). What was the reason for going down the strange rabbit hole of irrationalness earlier?

foldr 2y ago

Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.

randomdata 2y ago
> Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth. > I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position. Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue. But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it. If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.
- foldr 2y ago
  If you really just want to know why some US states have anti-sodomy laws that aren’t enforced (and that most people don’t want to enforce), then it’s a pretty simple story. The laws were made a long time ago when attitudes were different. Then the laws were all ruled unconstitutional in 2003, meaning that there hasn’t been any strong incentive to repeal them in the time since.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    See, now that is a solid, logical, good faith response (if not a duplicate of what you already said earlier, and what I already acknowledged as being reasonable). What was the reason for going down the strange rabbit hole of irrationalness earlier?