ku

See What does the Bible say about prenuptial agreements? Furthermore, I don't own any business. Where does the money come from? If you are a true Christian you refrain from luxuries and extravagance since they promote sins such as vanity and pride. You then work and save up like an ant. Proverbs 6:6-11 says, "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest... A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man."

I've always wanted to get married. However, a week ago while I was in the library I overheard some women talking about marriage. One woman wanted to divorce her husband and her female friends were telling her things like, "Stay with him a little longer and wait for him to make more money before you divorce. Then you can get more out of him." I was horrified by the women talking about marriage as if it were a business or a scam. Then I heard one woman saying something that really scared me. She said, "Christian men are easy targets. Their religion forbids prenups and forces them to provide for their wives." The reason why this was scary was because I am a Christian man myself who has a net worth of $1.4 million now. I am an optimist and still believe that not all woman are gold diggers but I cannot be certain that the one I fall in love with will not be. The Bible warns that the devil disguises himself. I spoke to my pastor and he told me that indeed a Christian cannot ask for a prenup and that if I get married I'd have to accept the risks. What should I do? Should I give up on marriage completely?

The Australian media has attacked the LDP because of its policy of legalizing incest. The LDP claims incest is a victimless crime. Suppose we were to adopt a capitalist system of morality. The reason why capitalists should believe incest should be legalized is the same reason why free trade should be legalized. Evident in the failure of communism, politicians are not good at running your life. Under a capitalist system, you as an individual choose what car to buy, what stocks to buy, or whom you have sex with. If a man decides through his own contemplation that buying a Ford is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose rather than having the government force a car brand on the people. Similarly, if a father decides through his own contemplation that having sex with his daughter is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose. Of course, we are assuming the daughter is mature and old enough to consent to sexual intercourse. When I said that the “consumer” should be given the right to choose, some people might argue that sexual intervourse is not a “business” agreement. Well, what is business? Business is trade. Trade is the exchange of goods or services between two trading entities. Sexual intercourse then is trade or business because it involves the exchange of sexual services between two people. Prostitution is trade because it involves an exchange of money for sexual services. But incestual sex between mother and son is also a business trade because it involves the mutual bilateral exchange of sexual service. An argument can be made that incest can have a negative externality on any babies born because inbreeding among family members can increase the probability that heritable diseases may be expressed. The Royal Family’s decision to inbreed to keep the wealth inside the family led to subsequent births of weak children. Because of this health problem that comes about from inbreeding, I recomment the LDP legalize incest but in order to neutralize any threat of negative externality the LDP should enforce the use of condoms if the father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, etc engage in intercourse that involves penile-vaginal penetration and possibly encourage sex that minimizes the risk of pregnancy, such as oral sex, anal sex, urine sex, and so forth. The LDP is right. Incest is a victimless crime. If a father and son who are both over 18 decide to have sex then both of them are happy and no one else is worse off. What these two people (or three or more if they decide to engage in group sex) do is their own private business.

Take for the example the issue of bestiality. I have always believed that having sex with an animal is quite harmless and should be legalized. However, if I were to have sex with a goat in public, some right-wing religious person would be offended. Yet many right-wing people scream political correctness when other try to stop them offending other people whose beliefs don't fit their own. So then political correctness seems like a case of people being able to dish abuse at others but being unable to receive it.

That is your observation but I saw many pale people at university. Perhaps we need something more objective. It's like football teams. People like to wear the team colors, chant, etc, because it feels good. It feels much better to believe you're part of a group than to believe you're a lonely individual. A study by Moses Shayo shows that in countries with more inequality the poor people are more likely to be patriotic because even though they are failures as individuals by being patriotic they can believe they are one with the ruling class and take pride for other people's achievements. See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1002186

Because many things that right-wing people are concerned about are suppressed by law, so these things can be seen as politically correct. E.g. I'm not allowed to walk around naked in the streets because I will offend religious people. Wearing pants then is a PC action. But because wearing clothes is presumably considered by many to be a right-wing thing then maybe not. Take it easy. Have you visited the Free Rice link in my signature?

CorporateSexOffenders.com has labelled YouTube as the most dangerous site for harboring pedophiles. See http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/?archive=159 Don't you think this disgust at pedophiles is good reason to limit free speech?

PC is avoiding insult to socially disadvantaged people. Therefore, if I avoid saying something that is derogatory to women, that is PC because women are disadvantaged. But if I avoid saying something derogatory to men, that is not PC? Is attacking PC just an excuse for bashing people who are socially disadvantaged? For those to advocate PC based on this idea, why is it okay to bash the disadvantaged and not the non-disadvantaged? Wouldn't this result in a might-makes-right system? If we live in a might-makes-right system then since government rules through power then government has the right to enforce any PC system it wants. So I would like to see some person who is against PC to clearly define why it is he does that. Being against PCness doesn't seem to make much sense.

If we drop goats in a dictatorship and if citizen have sex with the goats, the dictator may not be pleased and may punish the citizens. I think it's more effective to bring those citizens into America where they can have sex with goats without government interference. Today of course bestiality I think is illegal.

Before we talk about political correctness it must be defined because many people seem to use the term and not even know what it means themselves. They cannot even understand why they used the term. I am guessing it has been used many times by other people as a pejorative term that people jump on the bandwagon. Political correctness is just being polite and trying not to offend others. In this case I think some political correctness is good. For example, I wouldn't walk around naked in public because of the offense to families. Political correctness is about making people happy even if you're lying a bit. For example, if you saw an non-attractive young schoolgirl, would you go up to her and say, "You are ugly." Many people who say they are not politically correct attack those who attack Christmas. This I think is silly because Christmas itself is politically correct since it involves lying about Santa Clause to little children to make them happy. In fact, religion itself is politically correct. Instead of modifying words to make people happy, religion modifies all perception of reality to make people happy.

Legalizing bestiality will give a shining example to radical Islamic theocracies of freedom and individual choice. A thriving animal sex industry has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" written all over it. Individuals have the freedom and right to pursue happiness and animal sex will enable that for many people. Animal sex is fully consistent with Americanism. Nothing will express or symbolize American individual freedom more effectively than a man humping a goat.

Many people say that non-human animals, e.g. goats, cannot consent to sex. But I think they can. Even though goats and human are part of different species, the theory of evolution states we are all related (at least we all share a common ancestor and genetic relatedness between humans and many animals is very high). Basicaly, we can all understand each other in the Animal Kingdom. Many owners of pets can understand if their dogs or cats are happy, sad, or angry. If you started having sex with a goat, it is fairly easy to tell whether the goat is happy or sad. If you suspect the goat is sad and doesn't want to have sex, you could stop and try again another time. Trying to respect the animal's choice then increases the probability that the goat will enjoy the sex, which makes bestiality even more moral than killing for food. Legalizing bestiality can also have significant economic benefits. At the moment because bestiality is illegal, there is a missing market. Those humans who want to have sex with non-human animals cannot do so, and so there is a deadweight loss from government intervention since a potential trade between animal supplier and consumers who want sex is not realized. The demand from consumers who want animal sex will result in growth in a new industry sector that caters to supplying animals ready for sex. These companies that specialize in, say, human-goat sex will hire workers, pay taxes, satisfy consumer demand, and contribute to GDP growth. To all those that raise health concerns, in the same way that the food industry today has hygiene standards and competition among providers to increase quality, so too standards of animal preparation and presentation in the animal prostition industry can be made and competition among animal sex providers can increase quality and drive innovation and technological advancements. For example, scientists can genetically engineer orifices in, say, goats that maximize pleasure to the consumer. They do this by experimenting in labs different variables like surface texture, hardness, etc. This means that consumers can achieve better sexual intercoarse, therefore increasing aggregate consumer welfare. The biotech advances made in bestiality reasearch may even be transferable to other areas in the same way that space exploration advances can be applied to other areas. Most people think killing animals for food is fine. If killing animals for food is fine, why not have sex with them? Not many people eat human children. Nutrition from meat is done for long-term pleasure. More generally, people harm animals for their own sake. If eating animals is immoral then raping them would be as well following the logic I presented. I concede that.

That would make sense since conservatism means sticking with tradition and doing what has already been done, and so it doesn't really require any thinking. You simply emulate what is already done. What clothes do I wear? Just wear what they wore 100 years ago. Don't bother with evolution or science, just look to the bible. On the other hand, liberalism means freedom, so you allow yourself to freely try new ideas and not be restrained by tradition. Hence in the world of clothing you are free to try the latest trends and in science you experiment with the latest hypotheses to fine-tune established knowledge.

Which board games do you think are best for children to play if you want them to develop their minds? Deterministic, perfect-information board games like chess or Go can be good for developing reasoning and creativity skills but these games do not teach about randomness or imperfect information. In the real world we adults have to deal with randomness and imperfect information a lot, so maybe games like monopoly are better?

I've just been watching Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins. I want to talk about something that I have seen quite a bit of. There seems to be many people turning towards atheism and I suspect they are doing it not because of any deep thought about the topic but for the same reason that many people turn to religion, i.e. identity, image, belonging, and authority. In his documentary Enemies of Reason, Dawkins loves to go on about a war between reason and superstition. Creating in viewers' heads the idea of a war creates a distinction between good and evil. The next step is to characterize the good and the evil. Dawkins loves to talk to really bizarre psychics and people who speak in tongues, etc and then contrast this with men and women in white suits using high-tech equipment. This then creates imagery of what good and evil look like so that followers can easily identify, distinguish, and feel belonging through conformity. This is what religions do. Christianity creates an image of virtue, of the good Christian man or woman and then contrasts this to sinful things like drugs, gay sex, etc. Politicians do similar things when appealing to nationalism, creating flags to give physical manifestation to the state. Many Christians are very comfortable with their beliefs, yet if they are introduced to the teachings of Scientology about aliens spirits hijacking the bodies of humans, they scoff as if this is absurd. Yet their own Christian beliefs are as supernatural whether it's transubstantiation or raising of the dead or the God who is three but one. It is obvious that these Christians didn't really think about it this way. The Scientology belief of aliens and thetans create imagery that is incompatible with the imagery they are conditioned to believe is good. Likewise, many atheists I'm sure will see something weird, e.g. people talking about strange forces and strange languages, and they happen to be wearing strange clothes, so then the imagery here is incompatible with the imagery of the silent men and women in white coats using high-tech machines and so instinctively they reject. What I'm saying is that the criticism many give to Dawkins of being an evangelizer may be worth considering. Although most Christians may not admit it, I'm sure many of them like being Christians so they can act Christian, show other people they are Christian. It is a matter of image and pride, even though such prideful and vein behavior is sinful. Likewise, many of the followers of reason I fear may be flocking towards atheism not because of reason but because they are victims of their own irrationalities. As evidence of my claim that Dawkins has adopted the elements of religion, look at his website where he sells t-shirts with A symbols on it. How is wearing this A around any different to a Christian wearing a crucifix necklace?