/lit/ - Literature

GTFO, teabagger.

>>2060010
U MAD?

>>2060013
You are the one who is the jellyfish.

I don't have a mental disorder however a lot of ppl consider me a bit crazy likely because i'm saner than most ppl.

as for liberalism, you're a fucking retard if you don't lean left economically. socially? it depends on the issue. i'm against gay parenting, abortion(on principle, not it being cost effective) and most degenerate drug use. but for most other things im pretty liberal there too.

what can i say, im preetty rational.

>>2060028
>"left" economically
>claims to be normal
stop right there, socialist scum

where did i claim to be normal? i kind of did the opposite

>im rational

>against gay parenting

Gay here, please post your reasoning to be against people adopting kids you won't.

>>2060028
>against gay parenting

I'd rather have two gay dads than grow up in foster care. I'd also rather have two gay dads than one straight one, and I'd definitely rather have two gay dads than Fundie Christian parents. Absolutely all the evidence says that a parent-child attachment depends on how much love and attention the child gets, and not at all on the sexuality of the parent.

Really, if you think you have the right to limit other people's rights, you don't deserve rights at all.

>>2060036

everyone is left leaning where my and ty live, and conservatives are treated with suspicion and passive-aggressive resentment.

Keynesian games work in scandinavian countries, where the people are parsimonious and few.

I'm not convinced they work in countries gripped by alcoholism and a genetically degenerate population.

also, literature

>>2060059
me and ty"

>>2060059

where do you guys live?

curious now.

>>2060059
people are pretty much the same everywhere dude, don't be a jackass.

and lol at the idea of scandinavia not having alcoholics.

>mfw probably half of those people in the photo are Classic Liberals.
>mfw probably all of those people in the photo believe in the Christian-Judeo god (mental disorder).

>>2060049
>gay here
Fuck Off. im gonna make a thread about/for you tomorrow.

as for the reasoning, i think kids in our society need both a mother and father figure to grow up gracefully. we're already aware of the disadvantages that face single parent families and this is similarly inferior to the traditional family that weve tried to give our children for centuries. except this is even scarier than single parents raising children which is almost never intended in the first place. opening the floodgates and giving the ok to gay parenting is the type of thing that could destroy our society in indirect ways. the action would be like the opposite of eugenics.

also good luck giving examples of gay parent societies in history. if anything homosexuality is the one thing discriminated most around the rest of the world right not(that's probably due to the majority of people being filthy breeders tho not an actual rational arguement against homosexuality).

>>2060079

i'm not being a jackass.

my city is the murder and drugs capital of western europe.

you're the ignorant one if you think decadent culture doesn't have an impact on daily life here.

>>2060049
>Implying that children don't need a mother figure and a father figure.
>Implying that gender does not matter.

>>2060084

except gays do a pretty damn good job of raising children, you are just a homophobe.

plus the traditional family is just a load of horseshit

>>2060028
>>2060084
Woah, Ty, we are pretty in tune politically.

>>2060091

prove they do. you can't

Well I would call myself a socialist or even a communist.
But I have a pretty mixed idea about a lot of things, so basically I am neither of the two and just use it in terms of simplification. I would basically say I am leaning left, both socially and econmoically.

Also I am from Germany.

>>2060084

Oh, i didn't see that you beat me to it.

>>2060059
i think op is talking about america. democrats have consistently had the better economic record and less worst fuckups of all time like regan and bush.

>>2060084

plus it would cancel out the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.

>>2060091

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

You're a fucking idiot.

>>2060084
Just so y'know, there're two gays in this thread for you to make a thread about tomorrow. I look forward to it.

Also, the reason single-parent families are bad is because children need secondary attachments to function properly. Also, looking after young kids on your own is hard.

>>2060100
Would it really change your mind if i backed it up?

>>2060091
>>2060084
>implying a male can't be a mother figure
>implying a female can't be a father figure
>implying the role of parenting figures is in anyway related to gender

>>2060123

get a load of this faggot

>>2060123
Try to feed your child with your breasts

>>2060084

>eugenics

>>2060123

Sex, not gender. It is certainly a matter of gender.

>>2060111

>evolutionary advantage of homosexuality

wut

So much homosex butthurt in this thread, please return to the OP's topic.

>>2060126

http://www.cracked.com/article_19344_6-progressive-parenting-fads-you-wont-believe-are-legal.html
#4

>>2060099
whoa, hakas, i never had any idea you werent much of a moralfag. mayb we shud get to know each other bttr ;P

>>2060095
why is the traditional society bullshit?

>>2060124
I'm not even gay, but be rational. Define for me please the duties and role of the "father figure" and "mother figure"

>>2060053
Yes, but are homosexuals capable of love? I think not.

>>2060123
mfw i'm not implying it, im saying it you retarded obnoxious homosexual

>>2060137
It differs from culture to culture, but there should be a masculine and feminine parent. But if you think that a male could and/or should take the role of a feminine, and vice versa, the child will have some very strange concepts of gender and sexuality.

Inb4 200 replies.

>>2060095
>Tybrax
>homophobe
I'm pretty sure the other day he said he got a boyfriend recently. If that's true then props to him for not bringing it up like you to defend himself.

>>2060130

homosexuals don't have kids

therefore they produce surplus resources

these resources can be shared with the children of the familial group and ensure their survival / success, and thus the success of the gene.

ever had a kind spinster aunt or bachelor uncle who gave you money or spent time with you?

of course i'm only joking when I say this is a valid argument against allowing gays to adopt, if we were so concerned with preserving the purity of our evolutionary functions we would ban condoms etc.

>>2060141
Why? That child received the necessary masculine and feminine components to be healthily raised. Whats the problem? Are you going to say that there have not been "masculine" females and "feminine" males who raised children throughout history? They raised their children healthily and those children enter society.

>>2060138
>implying homosex love isn't undoubtedly purer on average
sound like some fag hasn't gotten around to reading his copy of Sex and Character yet...

Anyone with unattainable social or political ideologies have mental disorders.

>>2060154
Are you trying to say that idealists have mental disorders?

>>2060136
I wouldn't say I'm not a moralfag, I just hold the same conservative views on the same social things as you, I guess I'm liberal on most other things though. And ultimately I don't really give a fuck either way. I'm just old school.

>>2060155
I think thats what he is saying. Cmon yall lets just slow down and be pragmatic.

Single parent families are fine with sufficient economic support. Gender norms are problems that we need to address, not behaviours that we should go out of our way to teach children (although we already do).

>>2060133
honestly as a gay man the only one that freaks me out is the gender neutral xhildren.
i mean, trans peoplekill themselves all the goddamn time because realize being trans is bullshit

but like, if you had parents like those, and were like "YO I THINK IM A GIRL" they would probably hormones you up.


which would probably lead to another suicide. i mean, i thought i was trans when i was. turns out i was just gay

>>2060151
>They raised their children healthily and those children enter society.

We can only assume.

Can a male be genuinely feminine, or can a female be genuinely masculine? Or is it only an act?

>>2060154
What's an unattainable ideology?

>>2060163
Females acting feminine is an act, bro.

>>2060163

>Or is it only an act?

There are some that would say it's an act regardless.

>>2060157
also ty i think i added you on your josef k msn a while back

>>2060167
Our concept of the feminine is pretty warped thanks to consumerism and wealth.

>>2060165
An ideology that has not been fully successful or rationalized. Liberalism, conservatism, communism, etc. Just about all political ideologies.

>>2060173
i dont go online as much now and msn even more rarely. next time im on ill check for requests tho.

>>2060178
>>2060178

"The man with a new idea is a crank - until the idea succeeds."

Every idea begins somewhere. Instincts need not apply.

>>2060180
ok no problem :)

I am who I am.

Reckless spending and idiotic management decisions are not inventions of the right or the left.

The more segmented and secularized a society becomes, the more likely it is to fail.

Also, /lit/.

>>2060193
Enjoy your capitalism, peon.

>>2060182
Until they've succeeded, it's pretty much just a mule following a carrot on a string tied to a stick attached to it.

I'm a socialist. When it comes to social views, I am fairly liberal. The one exception is abortion, which I am opposed to on moral grounds. However, I understand that it isn't my place to make decisions concerning women and their bodies so I take a pro-choice stance on that.

I think what separates me from most liberals and socialists is that I am a cultural and civic nationalist. I'm not a big supporter of multiculturalism as I believe it only causes division amongst the people, which is detrimental to the nation.

>>2060163
Does it matter if its an act? It fulfills the role and serves the necessary duty when raising the child.

Heres one, if I spent every day only acting at being nice, opening doors, minding Ps and Qs, giving charity, being patient and helping people who need it, but in my mind hated everyone and wished them all dead, knowing in my heart it was only an act, would it matter? I'm BEING nice.

>Implying being tolerant of others and giving a shit about your fellow man is a mental disorder.

>>2060195
I will, thank you!

>>2060215
Imagine a man who pretended to like you, but really hated your guts. You would likely see gaps in the act eventually.

Now imagine a parent who didn't really love their child, but had to pretend to.

Genuine feelings matter.

>>2060148

then why are fuck are you talking about it you pretentious fuckwit

>>2060220
Oh dear.

>>2060226

i just thought it was an interesting way to think about things.

>>2060226
>yfw

>>2060224
>assumptions on a humans skill to act a part
ignoring that, the original point was never the genuineness in caring for someone, it was the genuineness in acting masculine or feminine. Masculine and Feminine roles are just that, roles, defined by their duties and actions. If you fulfill the masculine duties and actions you have assumed the masculine role. If you fulfill the feminine duties and actions you have assumed the feminine role. It doesn't matter if its an act, because the actions are what matter.

Just dropping in to say you Americans have the most fucked up political system on the planet.

The shit does not work, regardless of who ends up running the country.

You guys are left in a stalemate, eye of the shitstorm situation while your politicians stall each other at every turn and nothing ever gets done because they're all too busy trying to make the 'other side' look bad.

Democracy works. The degree you people have taken partisan politics to, does not.

I'm not even mad or anti-american, it's just staggering that a country the planet still relies on quite heavily (albeit not to the same degree it used to) will chew at its own legs this way. You're killing yourselves, bros.

I fear how bad the situation will have to get before your leaders wake up.

>by your definition i would be leftist but that doesn't even matter in the face of your political crisis. DO SOMETHING, the planet cannot afford to have you fuck around this way.

>>2060273

capitalism has become more than an economic system over there, it has become an ideology and people are willing to sacrifice everything in order to keep the market strong.

>>2060273
>>2060286
American here, and I pretty much agree. Our political system is simply dysfunctional. It does not work. All our other problems are soluble, if we could solve that one central problem, but it doesn't look like we can. Shine, perishing republic.

Does Libertarianism count? Because, if so, then yes. Yes I do.

>>2060291

Yeah, this was me >>2060273 and for all my words I know there's really fuck all you guys can do. A few centuries of this system means you can't really change it with a snap of your fingers.

I want to say that all it will take is one side of your spectrum to simply agree that aspects of an opposing parties policies are logical or even beneficial, but i know what a massive ask that is.

God, i pity Obama. And the guy who will replace him. To have this responsibility, to believe you know how to fix the problems, and at the same time know you have to play by the houses rules, and watch your policies get torn up like wet paper or changed beyond recognition every time you try and implement them.

Not to mention your election process.

>dat cash money

>>2060286
This reminded me of motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline this

>>2060301
A couple things. First, at bottom, it's less a problem of system and more a problem with the people. All these problems are, at bottom, the responsibility of the American people. This is a democracy, and we get the government we deserve. And I think the American people believe some dangerous and some silly things, and act in aggregate in ways that aren't always the most intelligent. Although there are also systemic factors. Second (although this could just be my partisan side speaking - I can't claim to be above this, not really) I don't think that one side can solve this on its own through willingness to compromise. It needs to be both sides. Because if only one side acknowledges that, it would be tantamount to encouraging the other side to go even further and demand even more, you see? If only one side is insane, that side would of necessity have an advantage, in the same in which Nixon gained the upper hand on the Soviets by appearing to be a madman.

>>2060326

Of course. You need a meeting in the middle from both sides.

But I also think the way you run things, with the Senate etc (i don't know enough to really be clear on this) is not working.

All this is of course, moot, since any such a change will be akin to rebreaking a bone so it can heal properly. And people are in enough pain at the moment.

I do!

Republican here.

You know at some point you have to look at leftist policies and laugh.

You have to laugh that they keep getting dragged up by college professors and pseudo-economists who think Keynes was akin to Jesus.

You have to laugh at the fact that our liberal-controlled media ignores every piece of bad news (unless of course it paints Republicans in a bad light) in order to save its darling socialist government.

You just have to laugh at the thought that a country could be brought to complete and utter paralysis through fear of being labeled "conservative."

Stay poor, socialistfags. I'm sure if you hate the capitalist dogs hard enough your Glorious Chairman will reward you.

>>2060404

Yeah, i'd laugh at all of that.

But i also laugh at you.


Keep living a 'wealthy' life.

As a Marxist, I hate liberalism with a fiery passion. It is a relic of the 19th century, and a system of rusted ideals that do not conform to reality.

>>2060441

brofist!

>>2060068
>me and ty
>ty and i
ftfy

>>2060404
Please stop calling everyone slightly to the left of yourself a socialist. It's not helpful.

>>2060464
I'm sure he call everyone to the right of him a nazi.

>>2060441
I see what you did there.

>>2060084
>Implying that our society is not already on a downward slope due to the liberal approach that young people have toward marriage and raising children.

>>2060123
But it absolutely is. You can't replace the chemistry between a child and their mother with a man, no matter how feminine he is. Obviously this works for a masculine female as well. Certainly a man can do well for the child by providing a loving environment to the best of his ability, but he'll never be able to satisfy the natural needs of a child for his mother. If one were to believe that chemistry is irrelevant, it'd just ignorant.

>>2060616
>society on a downward slope
>life expectancy constantly going up
>quality of life going up
>crime going down

Modern Western Civilization is founded on liberalism.

Conservatives are just reactionaries. If they had their way with history we'd still have kings.

>>2060933
It's the great vanity of every generation to think that either they or their parents were the peak of human civilization, and that it's all downhill from there. After a while you just learn to laugh it off.

>>2060943
I don't think that about western civilization generally, just america. also, it's going to take a long time to decline, probably like another hundred years maybe for the full effects to be felt.

I have a few things to say:

1) Why is this thread still here

2) >>2060949 You are a conservative retard.

3) Liberalism, in a classical sense, is the reason we are where we are now. Without it we would still be living under fucking monarchies. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT???!?!?!?!?!

I would like to say that your time would be better spent trolling /sci/, but alas, /lit/ has disappointed me.

>>2060949
>guaranteedreplies.jpg

>>2060949

Wasn't even funny. Who did this shit?

>>2060977
it clearly says who made it

>>2060059
>socialism
>works
nope.
Enjoy your muslims, But i bet you think you need to spend more money to integrate them?
As OP said, liberalism, its a mental disorder.

>>2060123
All studies in the entire fuckign world conclude that the standard nuclear family is by far the most healthy thing for a child to grow up in.
Women are women, men are men, faggots are an abomination.

>>2060083
>christian judeo
fuck off you dirty kike.

>>2060100
>thinks gender doesn't matter
Proving your mental illness.

>>2060217
Signing your own death warrant through zero birth rates, non-stop socialist spending, and mass immigration is mental illness, and you liberals still pretend they are GOOD THINGS!!

>>2060326
>america
>a democracy

>>2060084
>filthy breeders
If i heard a faggot use this term irl, i would follow him home and kill him.

>>2060960
>Liberalism, in a classical sense, is the reason we are where we are now.
Modern liberalism is what was called leftism, communism, cultural marxism.

And monarchies is vastly better then being a slave to the international jew bankers.
America was a free land, but that only lasted for a little while now we are even worse then europe and rapidly turning into a mudfilled shithole.

>>2060326
Yes, several issues, niggers are allowed to vote, same with women, children, etc. The founders intended 1 vote a household.
The constitution is shit all over many amendments are completely ignored, some are crazily abused by liberals to take meanings that were not intended.

>>2060935
No, not really. America was a "liberal" country vs the old monarchies but in many ways we were very traditional and puritan. Originally banks were outlawed same with lawyers, it took until 1913 for the jews to install their central bank.

Oh look, a bunch of ideologues.

When will you people realize that both sides have good ideas and bad ideas?

This is why if I ruled a country I would be a goddamn tyrant.

>>2061055
>If i heard a faggot use this term irl, i would follow him home and kill him.

No, you would go home and masturbate to Fox News while silently weeping.

>Modern liberalism is what was called leftism, communism, cultural marxism.

No, that's what it is called by illiterate people.

>America was a free land

lol

> The founders intended 1 vote a household.

Exactly, which is why democracy had nothing to do with the American Revolution.

>>2061070
lol, typical moderate who wants to compromise, the founders spit on your sort.

>>2061082
Men dont' weep, but fags do.

>>2061089

Whatever you say.

>>2061082
>>2061082
>Exactly, which is why democracy had nothing to do with the American Revolution.

That's incredibly simplistic and... umm... I get the sense that you care more about shocking people and hating the establishment than anything else. For one thing, you're using part of the Constitution to argue about the Revolution, when the Revolution happened 15 years before the Constitution. Second, you're ignoring the fact that the founders were establishing a mixed government, along the lines of classical political theory, which included an extremely significant democratic element (the House of Representatives). Third, you're using an extremely simplistic definition of democracy. Fourth, you're expecting the founders, who were racists and sexists, to pay heed to our present-day concepts of morality, which is just bizarre. Fifth, you seem to be arguing that the flaws of the founders or their mistakes mean that we should just ignore everything they did, that since they fucked some shit up they obviously had no ideals at all and were just a bunch of rich landowners attempting to expand their privilege and interests and permit colonial expansion.

The Founders framed a constitution that was obviously flawed, as they were obviously flawed as people. However, it was a constitution founded on democratic principles, on the belief that all authority was derived ultimately from the people. And this was, in large part, the ideal behind the American Revolution (which was complex in its causes and its events, so we can't really make blanket statements like that, but whatever, it's not like you're interested in historical accuracy)

>>2061094
In what way is the constitution flawed? The problems come from ignoring the constitution, also i read a page saying it was editted at some point to hide that lawyers shouldn't be able to serve in government.

>>2061089
Something tells me you don't know much about the founders.

>>2061089
It doesn't have anything to do with compromise; it has to do with the fact that just because I'm faced with two opposing options that doesn't mean either is necessarily absolutely and (as their some would argue) irrefutably correct.

>>2061103
Are you talking republican/democrat?
Republicans are not conservatives. Obviously both sides of the coin are the problem. Our politics is such a sham.

But there is nothing good in democrats/liberalism outside of feel good appeals to emotion. Maybe it helps you sleep at night.

>>2061098
>>2061098
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

That's one pretty big flaw right there. Along with Article I section 9, and Article V. Of course it was remedied by later amendments, the point is just that the constitution is a living document.

>>2061116
What is the problem with that?

>>2061116
If you read The Federalist, Madison expresses his disdain for the idea of counting certain people as property or as not being entire human beings. Hamilton and Madison (the authors of 'Federalist' and the main proponents of the Constitution; and Jefferson who wasn't entirely involved) were opposed to slavery and addressed the idea of putting major restrictions on the importation of slaves. Hamilton and Madison also addressed (at length) the idea of the Constitution being a 'living document' as well as the issue of partisanship.

>>2061094
>you're using part of the Constitution to argue about the Revolution, when the Revolution happened 15 years before the Constitution

Irrelevant. The same men who incited the revolution went on to create the constitution. When I say the American Revolution, I'm not talking about a contextless point in history, I'm talking about the entire era.

>you're ignoring the fact that the founders were establishing a mixed government, along the lines of classical political theory, which included an extremely significant democratic element

It was only "mixed" and "democratic" in the sense that it was the first government established that allowed every faction of the bourgeoisie to assert itself, in theory at least. This had nothing to do with most people living in north america.

>you're using an extremely simplistic definition of democracy

Democracy is a pretty simple concept.

>you're expecting the founders, who were racists and sexists, to pay heed to our present-day concepts of morality, which is just bizarre.

I don't expect them to do anything. I do however, expect people of the present time to have outgrown this silly idol worship of people that truly were backwards in fundamental ways. Or at the very least to cease looking at them for practical ideas on government.

>you seem to be arguing that the flaws of the founders or their mistakes mean that we should just ignore everything they did, that since they fucked some shit up they obviously had no ideals at all and were just a bunch of rich landowners attempting to expand their privilege and interests

I haven't made any argument at all, it seems that more likely that you take any sin against the Church of America to be personally offensive to you. I don't think we should ignore what they did, we should just stop trying to emulate it.

>>2061116
Madison addressed the issue of states apportioning taxes on states because of slave populations (they were often counted as both property and as a civilian presence). If you've ever read The Federalist Papers (#50-60 Madison addresses this issue) you'd know about the founder's intentions regarding the matter.

100+ replies

/lit/, i am disappoint

>>2061094
The only legit post in this thread.

>>2061128
>>2061137
Whatever their intentions may have been, they wrote a constitution that enshrined slavery. I don't know how that happened. Maybe they slipped. Maybe there was a hilarious case of mistaken identity. I don't know. But however it happened, they wrote a document that enshrined slavery, and you can't tell me that the constitution is perfect when it does enshrine slavery and count some people as partial humans. i don't mean to argue that all the founders were in favor of slavery; but the constitution as it was written did include slavery, and that is wrong.

I'd also like to point out that I entered this conversation defending the founders, and now you're getting on me for not being sufficiently pro-founder. whatever.

>>2061149
Negros are not human beings and certainly not americans.

The problem with slavery was race mixing and producing half white children who were also slaves, and then 3/4 white who were also slaves, and so on.

Noone had any trouble with the enslavement of proto-human beasts like the negro.
>and that is wrong.
This is your opinion. Based on a modern morality which is degenerate and suicidal.

>>2061132
>Democracy is a pretty simple concept.
Modern universal suffrage is incredibly far from intentions of the founders.

When is the last time you personally voted for a bill? Right away we are not in a democracy. Is that simple enough for you?

>backwards in fundamental ways
lol. Acknowledging obvious differences in race and genetics/gender is "backwards" ? Should be pretty obvious that the founders were not backwards at all, but very progressive founding a nation which was the shining beacon of freedom and liberty on this earth.

And now liberals forfeit all their freedom and liberty for 'racial equality" or "social justice" or some sort of concept alien to our country. Meanwhile advocating for destruction of our nation by importing of non-whites who have failed in the basics of civilization building.

Founders built, liberals destroy. Which is backwards?

>>2061163
>Modern universal suffrage is incredibly far from intentions of the founders.

Agreed.

>When is the last time you personally voted for a bill? Right away we are not in a democracy.

I know. America is a not a democracy and never has been.

>>2061132
I suspect that we differ enough in fundamental political viewpoint that any argument we could have would be pretty much futile.

I think that the founders of the country were humans, deeply flawed, with some pretty good ideas. I think that the framework for a country they established, as it has been modified through the centuries, is pretty good. I don't think that we should emulate them in everything, but I think that it's important to respect what they accomplished and, more than that, to respect the Constitution as the fundamental source for the American body politic.

>>2061172
What person isn't 'deeply flawed"? The came up with a system of government that has lasted beyond two centuries; that's so much better than what most countries have been able to do. The past two centuries have been a litany of politicians trying to evade the regulations set up in the Constitution, and always to the detriment of the people. If anything we should be following it more closely.

>>2061172

Fair enough.

>>2061179

lol

>>2061181
Yeah, you've never read anything written by any of the founders have you?

>>2061184

I don't know how to read.

>>2061185
Apparently. Or at least not anything substantial.

>>2061186

I'm sorry? I can't understand what you're saying, I'm illiterate.

>>2061189
Yes, because I accused you of being illiterate and you're playing coy, right?

This already has 33 sages, but I feel it could do with more.

>>2061193
Because even saged messages illicit responses, right?

Because a smarter person would just not post at all, right?

>>2061192

"Coy"? I have never seen these letters arranged in such a way. I would use a dictionary, but it would be useless to someone in my position, you see.

>>2061193
hear, hear

>>2061196
An intelligent but bored person would post.

>>2061193
>>2061198
the sages, they do nothing!!