Planned Parenthood Scandal

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresofBalance:I say that any particular life begins with that first cell division. But as to abortion, I believe that the point of cognition should rightfully be that line we draw in the sand.

This debate obviously stems for our individual fears of death. I see that we project our fears onto the fetus, and see it as ourselves, and that those that harbor the greatest amount of fear of this inevitable fate, are the ones that oppose abortion the most and scream the loudest. On the other hand, those that more readily accept it, have come to terms with their mortality, as certainly we all die.

We see that our lives, although fraught with many problems, trials and tribulations, are still better than not to have experienced existence at all, as there are all those fun things that we enjoy, the beautiful things. How can we possible deny ourselves, and thus another life, those beautiful things?

But this view is wholly fueled by cognition. I would only miss it, because I have known it. If I had never known it, how could I possible miss it. Of course we also see that of potential, and this takes us back to that first cell division.

Like I told you before, I do not condone the ending of that potential, in and of itself. But I also see that there are other factors that I must consider, as this is in fact a multidimensional problem that concerns two lives, not just one. To be honest, in the face of our destroying the symbiosis of our planets biosphere, due to human selfishness that has been amplified by over population, I look to Spock's solution: 'when the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one.' It's just a shame that they can't be apprised of the current human situation, as surely that's the only incarnation of the human animal, that would not be biased by their selfishness, and could be logically, self sacrificial, for the greater good.

aaalexandros: Thanks for this multifaceted post!

When do you think that cognition starts more or less? During the pregnancy or at the moment of birth? Cognition has a very small chance of occurring at the moment of birth since it is a gradual process..

Empathy is many times a projection of our fears or experience onto others, but there is also a more coldhearted(!) version of empathy like identifying oneself with any human life regardless of beliefs or emotions or even cognition.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post basically.

I understand that this is a multidimensional problem, but that multidimensionality should remain in the 'solution' phase of the problem as well. That is because, when we create monolithic solutions(resulting from a bipartizan viewing of the topic as 'woman's rights against fetus's rights') in a multidimensional problem, we offer a power of life and death that can, and will be abused..Resulting in today's casual approach to abortion..

It is the monolithic solution('a mother has the right to an abortion at all times') to this multidimensional problem that motivates me to cast light upon the fetus's existence as a human being..

Let's face it, the time to address this problem is before it becomes a problem. The proper place to deal with it is prior to conception. All animals have the natural urge to procreate, as it should be. But the lessons of ecosystem shows us the importance of checks and balances. Humans have upset this balance, and it's no surprise of what lies in store, for the whole of the biosphere, when any particular species numbers, are no longer kept in balance.

I see that mankind's ignorance, of conflicting emotional selfish concerns, are largely responsible for this problem, and that one way to reduce the problem is to legalize prostitution, that contains a pool of both men and women that are sterile, that choose the lifestyle, where both party's,that are to be involved in a union, are continuously screened for STD's. After all, in all actuality, both, those employed as actors in the production of pornography, and some marital relationships, are nothing more than a version of prostitution.

In a world where one particular animal is killing the whole of life off for the sake of itself, which in the end, shall not actually be for the sake of itself, that has been compounded by it's numbers, should reconsider the relationship of various beliefs of conflicting purpose, so as to situate them in such a way, so as to help balance, self regulate, what it is, or has come to be, as seen objectively, as being human.

[chaz wyman]

SpheresofBalance:I say that any particular life begins with that first cell division. But as to abortion, I believe that the point of cognition should rightfully be that line we draw in the sand.

This debate obviously stems for our individual fears of death. I see that we project our fears onto the fetus, and see it as ourselves, and that those that harbor the greatest amount of fear of this inevitable fate, are the ones that oppose abortion the most and scream the loudest. On the other hand, those that more readily accept it, have come to terms with their mortality, as certainly we all die.

We see that our lives, although fraught with many problems, trials and tribulations, are still better than not to have experienced existence at all, as there are all those fun things that we enjoy, the beautiful things. How can we possible deny ourselves, and thus another life, those beautiful things?

But this view is wholly fueled by cognition. I would only miss it, because I have known it. If I had never known it, how could I possible miss it. Of course we also see that of potential, and this takes us back to that first cell division.

Like I told you before, I do not condone the ending of that potential, in and of itself. But I also see that there are other factors that I must consider, as this is in fact a multidimensional problem that concerns two lives, not just one. To be honest, in the face of our destroying the symbiosis of our planets biosphere, due to human selfishness that has been amplified by over population, I look to Spock's solution: 'when the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one.' It's just a shame that they can't be apprised of the current human situation, as surely that's the only incarnation of the human animal, that would not be biased by their selfishness, and could be logically, self sacrificial, for the greater good.

aaalexandros: Thanks for this multifaceted post!

When do you think that cognition starts more or less? During the pregnancy or at the moment of birth? Cognition has a very small chance of occurring at the moment of birth since it is a gradual process..

Empathy is many times a projection of our fears or experience onto others, but there is also a more coldhearted(!) version of empathy like identifying oneself with any human life regardless of beliefs or emotions or even cognition.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post basically.

I understand that this is a multidimensional problem, but that multidimensionality should remain in the 'solution' phase of the problem as well. That is because, when we create monolithic solutions(resulting from a bipartizan viewing of the topic as 'woman's rights against fetus's rights') in a multidimensional problem, we offer a power of life and death that can, and will be abused..Resulting in today's casual approach to abortion..

It is the monolithic solution('a mother has the right to an abortion at all times') to this multidimensional problem that motivates me to cast light upon the fetus's existence as a human being..

Let's face it, the time to address this problem is before it becomes a problem. The proper place to deal with it is prior to conception.

All animals have the natural urge to procreate, as it should be.

Now I think this is where you are at fault with your conception of the the natural world.
I think you would do well to think things through a little more carefully.
No animal has the urge to procreate as it does not have a conception of procreation. Animals have the urge to rut, fuck, tup- call it what you will. It is the immediate urge to penetrate or be penetrated.
Procreation is an eventual consequence of this urge.
And herein is a solution. In rare cases some humans actually have the urge to procreate, but generally speaking the urge that leads to unwanted pregnancies is the same as the urge that drives the beasts of the field; the urge to rut.
Were we to encourage sexual activity that simulates rutting; either with a barrier, or by practices that satisfy the urge, but without the consequences occurring then that is a solution to BOTH the unwanted pregnancy AND the urge.



But the lessons of ecosystem shows us the importance of checks and balances. Humans have upset this balance, and it's no surprise of what lies in store, for the whole of the biosphere, when any particular species numbers, are no longer kept in balance.

Rutting kids, from whom most unwanted pregnancies emerge, do not consider the ecosystem. Once again your conception of reality is getting in the way of a solution.

I see that mankind's ignorance, of conflicting emotional selfish concerns, are largely responsible for this problem, and that one way to reduce the problem is to legalize prostitution, that contains a pool of both men and women that are sterile, that choose the lifestyle, where both party's,that are to be involved in a union, are continuously screened for STD's. After all, in all actuality, both, those employed as actors in the production of pornography, and some marital relationships, are nothing more than a version of prostitution.

What a bunch of crap. What the fuck do you think this has to do with the problem? What planet are you on? Kids fall for each other and then fuck. Were they more prepared for the consequences, by education and free contraceptive there would be no problem. Kids do not want to fuck strangers. Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of young people fucking people they know.

In a world where one particular animal is killing the whole of life off for the sake of itself, which in the end, shall not actually be for the sake of itself, that has been compounded by it's numbers, should reconsider the relationship of various beliefs of conflicting purpose, so as to situate them in such a way, so as to help balance, self regulate, what it is, or has come to be, as seen objectively, as being human.[/color]

You are in a world of your own.
If you want to fuck prostitutes go forth and do so. But I do not think your scheme is a solution to unwanted pregnancies.

[aaalexandros]

I see that mankind's ignorance, of conflicting emotional selfish concerns, are largely responsible for this problem, and that one way to reduce the problem is to legalize prostitution, that contains a pool of both men and women that are sterile, that choose the lifestyle, where both party's,that are to be involved in a union, are continuously screened for STD's. After all, in all actuality, both, those employed as actors in the production of pornography, and some marital relationships, are nothing more than a version of prostitution.

In a world where one particular animal is killing the whole of life off for the sake of itself, which in the end, shall not actually be for the sake of itself, that has been compounded by it's numbers, should reconsider the relationship of various beliefs of conflicting purpose, so as to situate them in such a way, so as to help balance, self regulate, what it is, or has come to be, as seen objectively, as being human.[/color]

Are you talking about childless unions? What will the role of the prostitutes be?

If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresofBalance:I say that any particular life begins with that first cell division. But as to abortion, I believe that the point of cognition should rightfully be that line we draw in the sand.

This debate obviously stems for our individual fears of death. I see that we project our fears onto the fetus, and see it as ourselves, and that those that harbor the greatest amount of fear of this inevitable fate, are the ones that oppose abortion the most and scream the loudest. On the other hand, those that more readily accept it, have come to terms with their mortality, as certainly we all die.

We see that our lives, although fraught with many problems, trials and tribulations, are still better than not to have experienced existence at all, as there are all those fun things that we enjoy, the beautiful things. How can we possible deny ourselves, and thus another life, those beautiful things?

But this view is wholly fueled by cognition. I would only miss it, because I have known it. If I had never known it, how could I possible miss it. Of course we also see that of potential, and this takes us back to that first cell division.

Like I told you before, I do not condone the ending of that potential, in and of itself. But I also see that there are other factors that I must consider, as this is in fact a multidimensional problem that concerns two lives, not just one. To be honest, in the face of our destroying the symbiosis of our planets biosphere, due to human selfishness that has been amplified by over population, I look to Spock's solution: 'when the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one.' It's just a shame that they can't be apprised of the current human situation, as surely that's the only incarnation of the human animal, that would not be biased by their selfishness, and could be logically, self sacrificial, for the greater good.

aaalexandros: Thanks for this multifaceted post!

When do you think that cognition starts more or less? During the pregnancy or at the moment of birth? Cognition has a very small chance of occurring at the moment of birth since it is a gradual process..

Empathy is many times a projection of our fears or experience onto others, but there is also a more coldhearted(!) version of empathy like identifying oneself with any human life regardless of beliefs or emotions or even cognition.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post basically.

I understand that this is a multidimensional problem, but that multidimensionality should remain in the 'solution' phase of the problem as well. That is because, when we create monolithic solutions(resulting from a bipartizan viewing of the topic as 'woman's rights against fetus's rights') in a multidimensional problem, we offer a power of life and death that can, and will be abused..Resulting in today's casual approach to abortion..

It is the monolithic solution('a mother has the right to an abortion at all times') to this multidimensional problem that motivates me to cast light upon the fetus's existence as a human being..

Let's face it, the time to address this problem is before it becomes a problem. The proper place to deal with it is prior to conception.

All animals have the natural urge to procreate, as it should be.

Now I think this is where you are at fault with your conception of the the natural world.
I think you would do well to think things through a little more carefully.
No animal has the urge to procreate as it does not have a conception of procreation. Animals have the urge to rut, fuck, tup- call it what you will. It is the immediate urge to penetrate or be penetrated.
Procreation is an eventual consequence of this urge.
And herein is a solution. In rare cases some humans actually have the urge to procreate, but generally speaking the urge that leads to unwanted pregnancies is the same as the urge that drives the beasts of the field; the urge to rut.
Were we to encourage sexual activity that simulates rutting; either with a barrier, or by practices that satisfy the urge, but without the consequences occurring then that is a solution to BOTH the unwanted pregnancy AND the urge.



But the lessons of ecosystem shows us the importance of checks and balances. Humans have upset this balance, and it's no surprise of what lies in store, for the whole of the biosphere, when any particular species numbers, are no longer kept in balance.

Rutting kids, from whom most unwanted pregnancies emerge, do not consider the ecosystem. Once again your conception of reality is getting in the way of a solution.

I see that mankind's ignorance, of conflicting emotional selfish concerns, are largely responsible for this problem, and that one way to reduce the problem is to legalize prostitution, that contains a pool of both men and women that are sterile, that choose the lifestyle, where both party's,that are to be involved in a union, are continuously screened for STD's. After all, in all actuality, both, those employed as actors in the production of pornography, and some marital relationships, are nothing more than a version of prostitution.

What a bunch of crap. What the fuck do you think this has to do with the problem? What planet are you on? Kids fall for each other and then fuck. Were they more prepared for the consequences, by education and free contraceptive there would be no problem. Kids do not want to fuck strangers. Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of young people fucking people they know.

In a world where one particular animal is killing the whole of life off for the sake of itself, which in the end, shall not actually be for the sake of itself, that has been compounded by it's numbers, should reconsider the relationship of various beliefs of conflicting purpose, so as to situate them in such a way, so as to help balance, self regulate, what it is, or has come to be, as seen objectively, as being human.[/color]

You are in a world of your own.
If you want to fuck prostitutes go forth and do so. But I do not think your scheme is a solution to unwanted pregnancies.

You rebuttal is foolish due to your selective reading, and as such deserve no rebuttal of mine until such time that you reread and actually address what was said.

[chaz wyman]

You rebuttal is foolish due to your selective reading, and as such deserve no rebuttal of mine until such time that you reread and actually address what was said.

You said prostitution is a solution to the 'problem'. I was not the only one to notice your ridiculous solution.
You are the fool.
You have a screwy way of looking at the world which is hopelessly abstract and ultimately teleological.
Do you really think animals have an urge to procreate?
This probably goes along with your ridiculous misunderstanding of evolutionary theory - another in your idiotic list of absolute truths. fuckwit.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see that mankind's ignorance, of conflicting emotional selfish concerns, are largely responsible for this problem, and that one way to reduce the problem is to legalize prostitution, that contains a pool of both men and women that are sterile, that choose the lifestyle, where both party's,that are to be involved in a union, are continuously screened for STD's. After all, in all actuality, both, those employed as actors in the production of pornography, and some marital relationships, are nothing more than a version of prostitution.

In a world where one particular animal is killing the whole of life off for the sake of itself, which in the end, shall not actually be for the sake of itself, that has been compounded by it's numbers, should reconsider the relationship of various beliefs of conflicting purpose, so as to situate them in such a way, so as to help balance, self regulate, what it is, or has come to be, as seen objectively, as being human.[/color]

Are you talking about childless unions? What will the role of the prostitutes be?
Actually they shouldn't be called prostitutes, as that label is of the old paradigm, and as such is slanderous. But obviously they are to serve the needs of those that have to have release of their animal desires, where they're unwilling or incapable of abstinence, and to curb the ineffectiveness of various contraceptive means, when someone is merely out for a joy ride, such that progeny and thus some abortions shall be averted. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal anyway, think of all the ugly and socially inept people that never have a chance to know the closeness of a union. And who's business is it really, how one decides to lead their life?

If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..
I'm talking of both averting some abortions and over population, as I've said.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You rebuttal is foolish due to your selective reading, and as such deserve no rebuttal of mine until such time that you reread and actually address what was said.

You said prostitution is a solution to the 'problem'. I was not the only one to notice your ridiculous solution.
You are the fool.
You have a screwy way of looking at the world which is hopelessly abstract and ultimately teleological.
Do you really think animals have an urge to procreate?
This probably goes along with your ridiculous misunderstanding of evolutionary theory - another in your idiotic list of absolute truths. fuckwit.

"One way to reduce the problem," you idiot!

[aaalexandros]

Are you talking about childless unions? What will the role of the prostitutes be?
Actually they shouldn't be called prostitutes, as that label is of the old paradigm, and as such is slanderous. But obviously they are to serve the needs of those that have to have release of their animal desires, where they're unwilling or incapable of abstinence, and to curb the ineffectiveness of various contraceptive means, when someone is merely out for a joy ride, such that progeny and thus some abortions shall be averted. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal anyway, think of all the ugly and socially inept people that never have a chance to know the closeness of a union. And who's business is it really, how one decides to lead their life?

If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..
I'm talking of both averting some abortions and over population, as I've said.

But not everyone want's to 'release' with a pro, some like the flirting part, of 'getting some'.. But maybe, we could adapt to that..The biggest problem, in my opinion, with what you propose is, that it has to be assumed that people have control of when they are getting their 'animal desires' taken care of, or when they are looking for the 'real thing'..
In my experience, most relationships start after you managed to 'get some'..Of course we know usually very quickly, if it is going anywhere, but initially we just take the 'flirting queues ' to whatever end..

As for averting abortions, for me the bipartizan approach should stop. Women are not fighting with fetuses. So supporting unilaterally the one or the other side, will just confuse people. Liberals, should start to strongly discourage carelessness in contraception habits, because an abortion is an unhappy ending, anyway you want to look at it. And conservatives should stop demonizing 'baby killers'.

Once this has been achieved, people will stop thinking they are fighting 'the other side' and intuitively develop the responsibility of looking at the creation of life more seriously..A bit optimistic, but anyway..

As for overpopulation, there is already too many of us in this planet, resourcewise, so, in my opinion, only technology can solve this problem. What i mean is some breakthrough in the energy field and of course, keeping the population from growing any more..by setting it as an 'open goal'..

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you talking about childless unions? What will the role of the prostitutes be?
Actually they shouldn't be called prostitutes, as that label is of the old paradigm, and as such is slanderous. But obviously they are to serve the needs of those that have to have release of their animal desires, where they're unwilling or incapable of abstinence, and to curb the ineffectiveness of various contraceptive means, when someone is merely out for a joy ride, such that progeny and thus some abortions shall be averted. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal anyway, think of all the ugly and socially inept people that never have a chance to know the closeness of a union. And who's business is it really, how one decides to lead their life?

If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..
I'm talking of both averting some abortions and over population, as I've said.

But not everyone want's to 'release' with a pro, some like the flirting part, of 'getting some'.. But maybe, we could adapt to that..The biggest problem, in my opinion, with what you propose is, that it has to be assumed that people have control of when they are getting their 'animal desires' taken care of, or when they are looking for the 'real thing'..
In my experience, most relationships start after you managed to 'get some'..Of course we know usually very quickly, if it is going anywhere, but initially we just take the 'flirting queues ' to whatever end..
Look I'm not saying that Professional Lovers is a solution in and of itself, by no means, but I do see it as helping, as is the more complete acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that it's foolish to place all your eggs in one basket, and that a multifaceted approach has both a greater chance of success and can speed things up. I also see that you have viewed my proposal of a new paradigm from the eyes of the old paradigm, but that is to be expected, as I have not mentioned many specifics outlining the new, but I don't think it'd be as problematic as one might think.

As for averting abortions, for me the bipartizan approach should stop. Women are not fighting with fetuses. So supporting unilaterally the one or the other side, will just confuse people. Liberals, should start to strongly discourage carelessness in contraception habits, because an abortion is an unhappy ending, anyway you want to look at it. And conservatives should stop demonizing 'baby killers'.

Once this has been achieved, people will stop thinking they are fighting 'the other side' and intuitively develop the responsibility of looking at the creation of life more seriously..A bit optimistic, but anyway..
As to this point, it would be nice, however, I see a big problem. The fight between Liberal and Conservative is huge. And to be honest this dichotomy must be put to rest and a new one realized with the end of the conservative side. Years ago I correlated the states that typically voted democrat (liberal) with 9 of the top 10 universities. Only 1 of the top 10 universities was in a red state during the last presidential election and it was a flip-flop state, that also voted blue on occasion. Combine that, with this article titled: "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" and then the very definitions of both terms Liberal, and Conservative, shown below, and one can clearly see that there is no room for conservatives, as by definition I see that they would have us living in the stone-age, of ignorance, instead of the future, of knowledge. Note the word "Progress" for Liberal and "to limit change" for conservative. Life is all about change and growth (progress), not stagnation (limited change), so says the laws of evolution, and is the very essence of going to school to learn.

liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

conservative [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Both definitions: --© Random House, Inc. 2012--

As for overpopulation, there is already too many of us in this planet, resourcewise, so, in my opinion, only technology can solve this problem. What i mean is some breakthrough in the energy field and of course, keeping the population from growing any more..by setting it as an 'open goal'..
But I see a multifaceted approach as more productive.

[aaalexandros]

Actually they shouldn't be called prostitutes, as that label is of the old paradigm, and as such is slanderous. But obviously they are to serve the needs of those that have to have release of their animal desires, where they're unwilling or incapable of abstinence, and to curb the ineffectiveness of various contraceptive means, when someone is merely out for a joy ride, such that progeny and thus some abortions shall be averted. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal anyway, think of all the ugly and socially inept people that never have a chance to know the closeness of a union. And who's business is it really, how one decides to lead their life?

If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..
I'm talking of both averting some abortions and over population, as I've said.

But not everyone want's to 'release' with a pro, some like the flirting part, of 'getting some'.. But maybe, we could adapt to that..The biggest problem, in my opinion, with what you propose is, that it has to be assumed that people have control of when they are getting their 'animal desires' taken care of, or when they are looking for the 'real thing'..
In my experience, most relationships start after you managed to 'get some'..Of course we know usually very quickly, if it is going anywhere, but initially we just take the 'flirting queues ' to whatever end..
Look I'm not saying that Professional Lovers is a solution in and of itself, by no means, but I do see it as helping, as is the more complete acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that it's foolish to place all your eggs in one basket, and that a multifaceted approach has both a greater chance of success and can speed things up. I also see that you have viewed my proposal of a new paradigm from the eyes of the old paradigm, but that is to be expected, as I have not mentioned many specifics outlining the new, but I don't think it'd be as problematic as one might think.

As for averting abortions, for me the bipartizan approach should stop. Women are not fighting with fetuses. So supporting unilaterally the one or the other side, will just confuse people. Liberals, should start to strongly discourage carelessness in contraception habits, because an abortion is an unhappy ending, anyway you want to look at it. And conservatives should stop demonizing 'baby killers'.

Once this has been achieved, people will stop thinking they are fighting 'the other side' and intuitively develop the responsibility of looking at the creation of life more seriously..A bit optimistic, but anyway..
As to this point, it would be nice, however, I see a big problem. The fight between Liberal and Conservative is huge. And to be honest this dichotomy must be put to rest and a new one realized with the end of the conservative side. Years ago I correlated the states that typically voted democrat (liberal) with 9 of the top 10 universities. Only 1 of the top 10 universities was in a red state during the last presidential election and it was a flip-flop state, that also voted blue on occasion. Combine that, with this article titled: "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" and then the very definitions of both terms Liberal, and Conservative, shown below, and one can clearly see that there is no room for conservatives, as by definition I see that they would have us living in the stone-age, of ignorance, instead of the future, of knowledge. Note the word "Progress" for Liberal and "to limit change" for conservative. Life is all about change and growth (progress), not stagnation (limited change), so says the laws of evolution, and is the very essence of going to school to learn.

liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

conservative [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Both definitions: --© Random House, Inc. 2012--

As for overpopulation, there is already too many of us in this planet, resourcewise, so, in my opinion, only technology can solve this problem. What i mean is some breakthrough in the energy field and of course, keeping the population from growing any more..by setting it as an 'open goal'..
But I see a multifaceted approach as more productive.

How is the conservative side going to disappear? What is your suggestion? Is it possible? Do you you think they are just going to say "we are stupid' and stop trying to make the world according to their beliefs? I must also say, that connecting IQ with the 'political disappearance' of a group is a very slippery road. F.e. the average citizen of China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan has an IQ of 5-10 points higher than the average U.S. citizen, or 'Western World' citizen. And many other groups, defined by other criteria, have higher IQ scores than the rest..

Let's just not go there, man.. You understand the possible implications..

I understand your strong dislike to the 'conservative' beliefs, but the only way to go, in my opinion, is persuasion, not 'intellectual humiliation'..

I have both conservative and liberal views, so i can't really identify with the one or the other group.

As for the Professional Lovers idea, i must admit it has a good side to it.. Certainly with abortion, overpopulation and sexual performance. But would you ever accept your lover to be getting the orgasms and the 'best sex' from another person than you? I know, maybe i'm being 'conservative' in your view, but i haven't found many women or men who would accept that. But, we could be schooled into it... Since this is a philosophy forum, i say, that ok, it is a way to solve some problems. How do we remove the need of 'sexual exclusiveness' from a relationship? Do you think it is just a 'societal thing' or an ingrained characteristic of our species?

As for homosexuality, do you mean that it should be more accepted by heterosexuals, or that heterosexuals should realize that they have a homosexual side to them?

[artisticsolution]

Combine that, with this article titled: "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" and then the very definitions of both terms Liberal, and Conservative, shown below, and one can clearly see that there is no room for conservatives, as by definition I see that they would have us living in the stone-age, of ignorance, instead of the future, of knowledge. Note the word "Progress" for Liberal and "to limit change" for conservative. Life is all about change and growth (progress), not stagnation (limited change), so says the laws of evolution, and is the very essence of going to school to learn.[/color]

Hi Sob:

The reason I posted that article in The Anti-Christ thread was not to show how 'conservatives' have low IQ's but to show how people, liberal and conservative, might both have the definition of "conservative" beliefs that you provided, in that some don't realize that they blindly follow a certain doctrine (which limits their perception to change) ...and that following a certain doctrine , whether conservative or liberal, can misguide a person into having a "them against us" mentality.

It is the "them against us" mentality that I have issue with....as it is clear that people will follow that doctrine...no matter what the trend is in society for that particular generation at that particular moment in time. i.e. when it's popular to have slaves....people defend slave owners and desire to have a slave themselves...OR...it is not popular to have slaves...so people attack slave owners and say they would have never owned slaves...even if they lived during the time when it was popular to have slaves but then turn around and try to control others by force or by making them social outcasts as a form of punishment.

It is this type of belief system that is the problem...and that most of us can't see it at the time...certainly lends to a certain "low IQ", if you ask me. Simply because only an idiot can point to others and say, "They do this or that...we must attack them...or ...at the very least, make them social outcasts." At the same time, thinking ourselves purged from any 'wrongdoing'... as if we are so good we are justified in doling out punishments, almost as if we were God himself.

N points this out in a very polemic way...because the way he puts it makes one at first want to attack his line of thinking. But then, one can't help but see the problem stems from ones conservative beliefs...conservative in the sense, we can not allow ourselves to think out of the politically correct box which we were molded from....meaning from the box of beliefs that our generation has been brought up to believe in.

If anyone thinks it is just conservatives who do this ...they are mistaken....Liberals do this too...because they too can get something stuck in their bonnet...and there is no room for debate. They conservatively stick to their guns...and shun/hate anything that goes against their doctrine. And...it becomes 'them against us" mentality.

We all get sucked into it! And this is N's point...why the 'overman' is a rare individual. And it is also why we get pissed off at N...because he makes us realize that we are not the "overman". That in itself could piss off any person...because our egos tell us we are 'good.' So much so that we would rather lie to ourselves and tell ourselves we are good... than tell ourselves we are the problem and be seen as having "low self esteem" or other such dishonest non sense that our generation has imbedded into out psyche. Dishonest because there is no reason to believe that if we were honest to a fault...about ourselves...and accepted it...we would have "low self esteem" in the first place!

It could be that (if we were honest) we could be we could begin to humbly accept our faults for honest reasons...and thereby accept our downfalls and bad traits in an honest way...and then begin to be able to stop that behavior. As you can't stop bad behavior if you can't admit there is a problem. After all, who among us can say that we are "good" when we don't even know what 'good' is because we have been lying to ourselves for so long (probably since the dawn of man)...trying to make 'false good" into being "reality good". And by that I mean, love ourselves (raise our self esteem) for something that we would "hate" in others i.e. the 'them against us' mentality) .

I believe it is this phenomenon that is the problem and not whether someone has conservative or liberal beliefs. As we all tend to have 'conservative' beliefs, insomuch as we are limited in our ability to change our firmly held beliefs. Sportsmen like mentality is alive and well in all of us.

[SpheresOfBalance]

in RED

in BLUE

Actually they shouldn't be called prostitutes, as that label is of the old paradigm, and as such is slanderous. But obviously they are to serve the needs of those that have to have release of their animal desires, where they're unwilling or incapable of abstinence, and to curb the ineffectiveness of various contraceptive means, when someone is merely out for a joy ride, such that progeny and thus some abortions shall be averted. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal anyway, think of all the ugly and socially inept people that never have a chance to know the closeness of a union. And who's business is it really, how one decides to lead their life?

aaalexandros wrote: If you are talking about the control of overpopulation,i have faith we can achieve it by increasing awareness and setting it as a goal 'in the open' and not 'stealthily' as is done today..
I'm talking of both averting some abortions and over population, as I've said.

But not everyone want's to 'release' with a pro, some like the flirting part, of 'getting some'.. But maybe, we could adapt to that..The biggest problem, in my opinion, with what you propose is, that it has to be assumed that people have control of when they are getting their 'animal desires' taken care of, or when they are looking for the 'real thing'..
In my experience, most relationships start after you managed to 'get some'..Of course we know usually very quickly, if it is going anywhere, but initially we just take the 'flirting queues ' to whatever end..
Look I'm not saying that Professional Lovers is a solution in and of itself, by no means, but I do see it as helping, as is the more complete acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that it's foolish to place all your eggs in one basket, and that a multifaceted approach has both a greater chance of success and can speed things up. I also see that you have viewed my proposal of a new paradigm from the eyes of the old paradigm, but that is to be expected, as I have not mentioned many specifics outlining the new, but I don't think it'd be as problematic as one might think.

As for averting abortions, for me the bipartizan approach should stop. Women are not fighting with fetuses. So supporting unilaterally the one or the other side, will just confuse people. Liberals, should start to strongly discourage carelessness in contraception habits, because an abortion is an unhappy ending, anyway you want to look at it. And conservatives should stop demonizing 'baby killers'.

Once this has been achieved, people will stop thinking they are fighting 'the other side' and intuitively develop the responsibility of looking at the creation of life more seriously..A bit optimistic, but anyway..
As to this point, it would be nice, however, I see a big problem. The fight between Liberal and Conservative is huge. And to be honest this dichotomy must be put to rest and a new one realized with the end of the conservative side. Years ago I correlated the states that typically voted democrat (liberal) with 9 of the top 10 universities. Only 1 of the top 10 universities was in a red state during the last presidential election and it was a flip-flop state, that also voted blue on occasion. Combine that, with this article titled: "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" and then the very definitions of both terms Liberal, and Conservative, shown below, and one can clearly see that there is no room for conservatives, as by definition I see that they would have us living in the stone-age, of ignorance, instead of the future, of knowledge. Note the word "Progress" for Liberal and "to limit change" for conservative. Life is all about change and growth (progress), not stagnation (limited change), so says the laws of evolution, and is the very essence of going to school to learn.

liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

conservative [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Both definitions: --© Random House, Inc. 2012--

As for overpopulation, there is already too many of us in this planet, resourcewise, so, in my opinion, only technology can solve this problem. What i mean is some breakthrough in the energy field and of course, keeping the population from growing any more..by setting it as an 'open goal'..
But I see a multifaceted approach as more productive.

How is the conservative side going to disappear? What is your suggestion?
Through education and time.

Is it possible?
With education and time, Yes!

Do you you think they are just going to say "we are stupid' and stop trying to make the world according to their beliefs?
Currently, unfortunately, you can't change someones mind, on a dime, as their ego gets in the way.

I must also say, that connecting IQ with the 'political disappearance' of a group is a very slippery road. F.e. the average citizen of China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan has an IQ of 5-10 points higher than the average U.S. citizen, or 'Western World' citizen. And many other groups, defined by other criteria, have higher IQ scores than the rest..

Let's just not go there, man.. You understand the possible implications..
Honestly I don't see a problem. Are you alluding to "Us and Them," "And who knows which is which, and who is who," and "who'll deny it what the fighting's all about?" I have no problem with anybody, regardless of their; so called, race; so called, religion; so called, culture; or so called, governing type; as long as they subscribe to the golden rule (I have a modified version that accounts for philosophical issues, that I've renamed the "Fundamental Social Axiom"), that calls for everyone to live and let live, as surely no one actually 'knows' of the truth of all existence, so how can anyone define another's life's constraints, as long as they only directly affect themselves, other than the equality contained in 'live and let live.' As "it has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts." "This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion." "This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc." --Wikipedia, as to the "Golden Rule"--


I understand your strong dislike to the 'conservative' beliefs, but the only way to go, in my opinion, is persuasion, not 'intellectual humiliation'..
I was not speaking of a way to proceed, merely pointing out an important problem, such that I agree that one must be 'diplomatic' in approach. It was not my intent to offend, merely be informative.


I have both conservative and liberal views, so i can't really identify with the one or the other group.
OK! I won't ask you to divulge your conservative views, though` I admit I'm curious. I was not trying to brow-beat you. But one is a fool that thinks they have a right to steer another mans ship, as no one 'knows' of one true course.


As for the Professional Lovers idea, i must admit it has a good side to it.. Certainly with abortion, overpopulation and sexual performance. But would you ever accept your lover to be getting the orgasms and the 'best sex' from another person than you? I know, maybe i'm being 'conservative' in your view, but i haven't found many women or men who would accept that. But, we could be schooled into it... Since this is a philosophy forum, i say, that ok, it is a way to solve some problems.
Obviously, I don't know all the specifics, as I have not done extensive research, as to all the 'ins and outs' (no pun intended), but I know that in the shadow of Freud's thoughts backed by naturalism, it is the way to go, and is a classic example where mankind's perversion of selfishness shoots himself in the foot.

How do we remove the need of 'sexual exclusiveness' from a relationship? Do you think it is just a 'societal thing' or an ingrained characteristic of our species?
Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but it is a common belief that a large section of, at least men, do not prefer monogamy, and I have known of open marriages, swingers, if you will, if during a couples courting phase both parties honest beliefs are exposed, then I can see no problems. Of course it's widely understood that lies are problematic, survey says, "Number one answer!"


As for homosexuality, do you mean that it should be more accepted by heterosexuals, or that heterosexuals should realize that they have a homosexual side to them?
Both, in all ways, as it is a taboo of selfish expectation, as to the way one asserts their wants upon another, so that they can feel better with their control, as if one could actually 'know' of, and then consider, a universal plan, that preserves, 'all' life, as we know it, as only in that course, can the truth be found, as to the heart of the matter!

[aaalexandros]

How is the conservative side going to disappear? What is your suggestion?
Through education and time.

Is it possible?
With education and time, Yes!

Do you you think they are just going to say "we are stupid' and stop trying to make the world according to their beliefs?
Currently, unfortunately, you can't change someones mind, on a dime, as their ego gets in the way.

I must also say, that connecting IQ with the 'political disappearance' of a group is a very slippery road. F.e. the average citizen of China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan has an IQ of 5-10 points higher than the average U.S. citizen, or 'Western World' citizen. And many other groups, defined by other criteria, have higher IQ scores than the rest..

Let's just not go there, man.. You understand the possible implications..
Honestly I don't see a problem. Are you alluding to "Us and Them," "And who knows which is which, and who is who," and "who'll deny it what the fighting's all about?" I have no problem with anybody, regardless of their; so called, race; so called, religion; so called, culture; or so called, governing type; as long as they subscribe to the golden rule (I have a modified version that accounts for philosophical issues, that I've renamed the "Fundamental Social Axiom"), that calls for everyone to live and let live, as surely no one actually 'knows' of the truth of all existence, so how can anyone define another's life's constraints, as long as they only directly affect themselves, other than the equality contained in 'live and let live.' As "it has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts." "This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion." "This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc." --Wikipedia, as to the "Golden Rule"--


I understand your strong dislike to the 'conservative' beliefs, but the only way to go, in my opinion, is persuasion, not 'intellectual humiliation'..
I was not speaking of a way to proceed, merely pointing out an important problem, such that I agree that one must be 'diplomatic' in approach. It was not my intent to offend, merely be informative.


I have both conservative and liberal views, so i can't really identify with the one or the other group.
OK! I won't ask you to divulge your conservative views, though` I admit I'm curious. I was not trying to brow-beat you. But one is a fool that thinks they have a right to steer another mans ship, as no one 'knows' of one true course.


As for the Professional Lovers idea, i must admit it has a good side to it.. Certainly with abortion, overpopulation and sexual performance. But would you ever accept your lover to be getting the orgasms and the 'best sex' from another person than you? I know, maybe i'm being 'conservative' in your view, but i haven't found many women or men who would accept that. But, we could be schooled into it... Since this is a philosophy forum, i say, that ok, it is a way to solve some problems.
Obviously, I don't know all the specifics, as I have not done extensive research, as to all the 'ins and outs' (no pun intended), but I know that in the shadow of Freud's thoughts backed by naturalism, it is the way to go, and is a classic example where mankind's perversion of selfishness shoots himself in the foot.

How do we remove the need of 'sexual exclusiveness' from a relationship? Do you think it is just a 'societal thing' or an ingrained characteristic of our species?
Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but it is a common belief that a large section of, at least men, do not prefer monogamy, and I have known of open marriages, swingers, if you will, if during a couples courting phase both parties honest beliefs are exposed, then I can see no problems. Of course it's widely understood that lies are problematic, survey says, "Number one answer!"


As for homosexuality, do you mean that it should be more accepted by heterosexuals, or that heterosexuals should realize that they have a homosexual side to them?
Both, in all ways, as it is a taboo of selfish expectation, as to the way one asserts their wants upon another, so that they can feel better with their control, as if one could actually 'know' of, and then consider, a universal plan, that preserves, 'all' life, as we know it, as only in that course, can the truth be found, as to the heart of the matter!

Education and time is the way to go for me too. But, let's apply that to the cases where education and research support the 'conservative' side in an argument, as well.
I also agree with the Golden Rule. My basic point in this topic was to apply it to the baby (when it becomes one) as well. Also, since you apply the Golden Rule regardless of ethnic, racial, or 'political' differences, so much the better in terms of consistency.
I think that our ‘perversion’ of selfishness that you mention, will need a lot more education and time to be eradicated than the time it will take to uproot what you consider the conservative dogma. Without being pessimistic, I doubt that most people can come to the point to act selflessly, because these selfish attitudes are linked to the survival instinct, and therefore have deep genetic roots in all of us. Some of us, can make the transition, most of us wouldn’t because it is counter-intuitive to us..But, I can’t really know..Maybe we could project (with propaganda, of course!) the idea of personal survival to the human race as a ‘whole’, into the minds of people, so that it seems less counter-intuitive..
As for my ‘conservative beliefs’, well, it is common sense I think, that not everything has to change, some things are fine the way they are today, so believing in conserving them, would make me conservative in the true sense, not in the sense it is presented in a political debate, with special ‘dos’ or ‘don’ts’ for ‘conservatives’ and’ progressives’.
Also, since humanity also makes mistakes, as far as ‘social engineering’ goes, well, admitting it and supporting ‘getting back to the previous situation’, would make me a conservative as well, in those issues it is the case.
Men prefer polygamy but they can’t stand it when ‘their’ women do that us well..Most men again, in my experience..I haven’t met many swingers so I ask you what is your evaluation of that habit’s influence on the stability of a relationship. Does it affect it in any certain way?

[artisticsolution]

Alex: For ‘aesthetic purposes’? Not for humanitarian ones? This attitude puzzles me..

AS: No I mean in the truest sense of the word Aesthetics....in the way human beings cling to aesthetics without really realizing how much their opinion formation is based on such shallowness as appearances. People love to think there is something "magical" in how they feel about a certain thing. But there is no basis in fact in that thought. So what I meant when I said 'aesthetic purposes' was that give people a cut off date that please them aesthetically...i.e. the fetus becomes a cute pink adorable bundle of joy at 25 ish weeks...(not they they will ever care about that life in order to see that it is taken care of properly....which is why I say people are shallow to think they care about "life" when all they really care about is not destroying the "beauty" that pleases them. Once they are required to take care of said "beauty", it becomes a whole nother ball park. Which is why you personally would never want the responsibility of being pregnant. It is a whole nother ballpark when we are talking about YOUR freedom...YOUR personal choices. Where is that lofty golden rule now? LOL You hide behind a false front that men were designed to hunt and women were designed to love their children. Well, that is really convenient to your argument but it is not the truth at least not any more. Call it what you will...but times are changing. Technology and civil rights has made us all pretty much equal and we no longer need "protectors" (we have guns), we...and by we I mean all people...we have food available to us in grocery stores, so we don't need anyone to hunt for us. We have shelter we can rent or purchase...so we don't need anyone to build us a hut for the night. Basically, the MAN as a protector, hunter/gather...is obsolete. He is redundant...he is history.

Now it is the time that he evolves. He will need to change his image to keep up with women in the work place. Evolution says he must adapt. Now I don't know what that means...but I do know that someone is going to have to start taking care of the babies now that women have other options. Forget what the church taught you....here you say:

Alex:And, I am sorry to have to bring it out to you, but it seems that men are ‘jumping’ lower and lower with or without boners, wherever in the world your kind of reasoning has been followed, divorce rates have climbed to over 50%..
Many people choose to be single nowadays, at record rates..
And the way you imply that a men’s only reason to be attracted or influenced or ‘controlled’ by a woman, is because of the ‘boner’, is a bit sexist towards.. women..


AS:I hate to break it to you...I was not talking about divorce. Actually, women have less 'power" in a marriage than outside marriage. Simply because she has been "boned"/mounted/ stuck-a-flag-in-her-ass and consider her climbed. I know you don't like the truth about aesthetics...but this is the way it is and always will be. Men behave differently according to a woman's appearance. Whether or not he is married to her or does not even know her...a good looking young woman has more power than an ugly or older women. Those are just the facts sexist or not. If a man loves a woman (which may or may not be based on aesthetics....but 99% of the time love is based on aesthetics) he will move mountains for her....whether or not he is married to her.

Alex:You say that the cut-off date of 25 to 30 weeks would cause overpopulation and then you ask me if I want to give my position in this earth for a couple of cells. But after 25-30 weeks they are not a couple of cells, and of course I would not stoop down to the level of allowing babies to be killed because they have no say..Just to save ‘my spot’.

AS: Yes you would. You most definitely would if it meant your offspring would not have a quality life. This is just human nature and survival 101. And you can post all the "statistics" you want about overpopulation...but try believe your own eyes for a moment instead of what someone is telling you. Just wrap your head around this for a moment.

Remember for a second when you were young (I don't know how old you are...but if you are in your 20's it might not work as well...still...remember I told you this when you get older). How big was your town? How many kids were in your school...If you are as old as me there is a drastic difference in population. A difference you can see. When I was younger...And we moved to the very edge of town...everyone thought we were crazy to move into "the boondocks". Well fast forward 30 short years...and Boom! Were we lived then...Is considered central. It is toted as being 'close to the Strip!"( I live in Las Vegas.)

Perhaps you've witnessed such growth in the few years you've been alive? Now imagine a time in the future...if things continue like they are? Eventually, it will be too crowded to survive. !00% No if's and's or but's about it...and when it is...you mean to tell me you are going to care about a bunch of cells that a woman in Kalamazoo is carrying at the expense of your children i.e. your loved ones quality of life? I say BULLSHIT. I say it is then when you would second guess your "morality".

Don't worry...you won't be alone. Everyone will. I am not saying this to be mean...or to be crass. I am just saying this as a matter of fact. I have seen it a thousands times before in my relatively short 50 years (Yikes...I just admitted it! I just turned 50! )....I have seen countless people say "NEVER" And then when times change...and it become acceptable to do a certain thing that was unheard of before...all of a sudden...the people who said "NEVER" are in line with the new morality! Not only that....they praise what they once thought was 'immoral' or hip or whatever...as being the best thing ever! This is why I say most people shallowly follow aesthetics ....whether it be the trend of fashion or the trend of morality or even the person they fall in love with. They then take that aesthetic and try to make it glorious...as if they rose above the essence of humanity! They call aesthetic "magical" because of the way it makes them feel...and not the truth of the matter...which is we are all herd followers. Hate to break it to you...but it will hardly help to kill the messenger.

[SpheresOfBalance]

How is the conservative side going to disappear? What is your suggestion?
Through education and time.

Is it possible?
With education and time, Yes!

Do you you think they are just going to say "we are stupid' and stop trying to make the world according to their beliefs?
Currently, unfortunately, you can't change someones mind, on a dime, as their ego gets in the way.

I must also say, that connecting IQ with the 'political disappearance' of a group is a very slippery road. F.e. the average citizen of China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan has an IQ of 5-10 points higher than the average U.S. citizen, or 'Western World' citizen. And many other groups, defined by other criteria, have higher IQ scores than the rest..

Let's just not go there, man.. You understand the possible implications..
Honestly I don't see a problem. Are you alluding to "Us and Them," "And who knows which is which, and who is who," and "who'll deny it what the fighting's all about?" I have no problem with anybody, regardless of their; so called, race; so called, religion; so called, culture; or so called, governing type; as long as they subscribe to the golden rule (I have a modified version that accounts for philosophical issues, that I've renamed the "Fundamental Social Axiom"), that calls for everyone to live and let live, as surely no one actually 'knows' of the truth of all existence, so how can anyone define another's life's constraints, as long as they only directly affect themselves, other than the equality contained in 'live and let live.' As "it has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts." "This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion." "This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc." --Wikipedia, as to the "Golden Rule"--


I understand your strong dislike to the 'conservative' beliefs, but the only way to go, in my opinion, is persuasion, not 'intellectual humiliation'..
I was not speaking of a way to proceed, merely pointing out an important problem, such that I agree that one must be 'diplomatic' in approach. It was not my intent to offend, merely be informative.


I have both conservative and liberal views, so i can't really identify with the one or the other group.
OK! I won't ask you to divulge your conservative views, though` I admit I'm curious. I was not trying to brow-beat you. But one is a fool that thinks they have a right to steer another mans ship, as no one 'knows' of one true course.


As for the Professional Lovers idea, i must admit it has a good side to it.. Certainly with abortion, overpopulation and sexual performance. But would you ever accept your lover to be getting the orgasms and the 'best sex' from another person than you? I know, maybe i'm being 'conservative' in your view, but i haven't found many women or men who would accept that. But, we could be schooled into it... Since this is a philosophy forum, i say, that ok, it is a way to solve some problems.
Obviously, I don't know all the specifics, as I have not done extensive research, as to all the 'ins and outs' (no pun intended), but I know that in the shadow of Freud's thoughts backed by naturalism, it is the way to go, and is a classic example where mankind's perversion of selfishness shoots himself in the foot.

How do we remove the need of 'sexual exclusiveness' from a relationship? Do you think it is just a 'societal thing' or an ingrained characteristic of our species?
Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but it is a common belief that a large section of, at least men, do not prefer monogamy, and I have known of open marriages, swingers, if you will, if during a couples courting phase both parties honest beliefs are exposed, then I can see no problems. Of course it's widely understood that lies are problematic, survey says, "Number one answer!"


As for homosexuality, do you mean that it should be more accepted by heterosexuals, or that heterosexuals should realize that they have a homosexual side to them?
Both, in all ways, as it is a taboo of selfish expectation, as to the way one asserts their wants upon another, so that they can feel better with their control, as if one could actually 'know' of, and then consider, a universal plan, that preserves, 'all' life, as we know it, as only in that course, can the truth be found, as to the heart of the matter!

Education and time is the way to go for me too. But, let's apply that to the cases where education and research support the 'conservative' side in an argument, as well.
I also agree with the Golden Rule. My basic point in this topic was to apply it to the baby (when it becomes one) as well.
Yes, I see this as problematic, because who is to say? It's just a label born internally, that one applies to something external, as if they could possibly know it, from it's internal perspective. Again I say, stop it before you ever have to ask that question. It's like doctors that address a symptom instead of the causal. Many people see sex in a false light. First and foremost they see it as a rite of passage, a natural urge that is programmed into the animal, that goes without saying. I for one see this as immature, as gambling with the creation of life shouldn't be that simple minded. This carefree attitude may have been acceptable many years ago, but today, only a view that it's all about procreation, shall help put an end to the need to discuss such things, as the assured strength of progeny in procreation, is the reason there are sexes in the first place, or so most scientist believe.

Also, since you apply the Golden Rule regardless of ethnic, racial, or 'political' differences, so much the better in terms of consistency.
I think that our ‘perversion’ of selfishness that you mention, will need a lot more education and time to be eradicated than the time it will take to uproot what you consider the conservative dogma. Without being pessimistic, I doubt that most people can come to the point to act selflessly, because these selfish attitudes are linked to the survival instinct, and therefore have deep genetic roots in all of us. Some of us, can make the transition, most of us wouldn’t because it is counter-intuitive to us..But, I can’t really know..Maybe we could project (with propaganda, of course!) the idea of personal survival to the human race as a ‘whole’, into the minds of people, so that it seems less counter-intuitive..
As for my ‘conservative beliefs’, well, it is common sense I think, that not everything has to change, some things are fine the way they are today, so believing in conserving them, would make me conservative in the true sense, not in the sense it is presented in a political debate, with special ‘dos’ or ‘don’ts’ for ‘conservatives’ and’ progressives’.
Also, since humanity also makes mistakes, as far as ‘social engineering’ goes, well, admitting it and supporting ‘getting back to the previous situation’, would make me a conservative as well, in those issues it is the case.
Men prefer polygamy but they can’t stand it when ‘their’ women do that us well..Most men again, in my experience..I haven’t met many swingers so I ask you what is your evaluation of that habit’s influence on the stability of a relationship. Does it affect it in any certain way?