Catholic Town - 'Ave Maria' - Planned in Florida

[Barihawk]

Poor wording on my part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The business does not force them into drug or alcohol habits, but guilt does. After rereading, I see where the mistake was made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And my evidence from the previous post on sex addiction was from noted experts on sexual problems. I mean, its Dr. Drew!

[Anesthesia]

Provide some evidence for guilt doing that then? It's still baseless.

[Bubsa]

Many porn stars are forced into crack habits to try and get over the moral disdeeds that they have performed.

 

 

 

Oh my word. That's as hilarious as the Chris Rock sketch on the stripper myth.

[Barihawk]

Provide some evidence for guilt doing that then? It's still baseless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do heavy alcoholics drink? To forget thier troubles. I really don't have hard website evidence because I just meant this as a tag on to my post, after seeing that he actually thought the life of pornography was glamorous.

[Mercifull]

How about we all cite our sources in future... mentioning no names specifically. Lets stop posting opinion as fact

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

Provide some evidence for guilt doing that then? It's still baseless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do heavy alcoholics drink? To forget thier troubles. I really don't have hard website evidence because I just meant this as a tag on to my post, after seeing that he actually thought the life of pornography was glamorous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all alcaholics drink simply to forget their troubles. A fair number of them drink simply because they have an addictive personality, and have become addicted to the euphoria alcahol requires.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying that the "guilt of porn forces people into crack-habits" is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They may feel guilty, they may turn to drugs as a result. Just because you have a set of morals doesn't mean everyone else follows those same morals.

[Anesthesia]

Why do heavy alcoholics drink? To forget thier troubles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By that rationale fancy executives 'turn' to cocaine because they feel guilty about having high salaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executives have high salaries, a minority snort coke. Doesn't mean that it is cause and effect.

[Kwisatz]

 

I don't see the problem with pornography either. As long as it's all done legally (I.E. not child porn or anything like that), what does it matter? It's a job just like anything else. If there's a market for something, there will be people who cater to that market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been realizing lately that I really don't like it when people use the law to justify something. That's a little shallow - we all know that pornography is legal, but what we are asking is, is it good? Is it right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY! All of the feminist rights groups are moaning to us dudes, and they should be moaning to the women who allow themselves to be photographed. They make money off of it, like it, and allow it, if they want to stop it they should stop it at the source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe they're moaning to "us dudes" who instead of directing them towards good jobs or helping them out financially - make our shallowness evident by directing them towards self-degredation as a form of work. I rarely (I have never) met a girl whose main goal in life was to become a porn star/prostitute. It usually seems to be a last resort for women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're being sexist by implying that men need to direct women, and that women are incapable of making decisions. Nobody holds a gun to a woman's head and screams "MAKE RAUNCHY POSES! NOW!" They're independent to steer themselves, or so they purport. For the record, I don't hate all feminists, only the radically unrealistic ones that decide that men are to blame for all of their little problems. Realistic feminists are the ones that recognize that disillusioned women contribute to the problems that face the female gender as a whole in society today, and the unrealistic ones decide that men are the most evil things on the planet Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've met a few girls who have those kinds of goals, but then again, they also appear to be sentient beings, not mindless atomatons, and thus have the free will to tell the photographer and agent to stop.

[insane]

 

 

 

I think you're being sexist by implying that men need to direct women, and that women are incapable of making decisions. Nobody holds a gun to a woman's head and screams "MAKE RAUNCHY POSES! NOW!" They're independent to steer themselves, or so they purport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I was trying to use the same form you used in your post when responding (the whole moaning to "us dudes"), and it came out sexist. I didnt' mean it that way... my point was, if people were truly satisfied with their lives they wouldn't resort to self-degredation, and men aren't helping the problem by encouraging it.

[Kwisatz]

 

 

 

 

I think you're being sexist by implying that men need to direct women, and that women are incapable of making decisions. Nobody holds a gun to a woman's head and screams "MAKE RAUNCHY POSES! NOW!" They're independent to steer themselves, or so they purport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I was trying to use the same form you used in your post when responding (the whole moaning to "us dudes"), and it came out sexist. I didnt' mean it that way... my point was, if people were truly satisfied with their lives they wouldn't resort to self-degredation, and men aren't helping the problem by encouraging it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if it came out sounding that way. I tried to make it not - I thought that "us dudes" sounded more innocent and less offensive then us "men."

[dwarfie76]

Yea, I was trying to use the same form you used in your post when responding (the whole moaning to "us dudes"), and it came out sexist. I didnt' mean it that way... my point was, if people were truly satisfied with their lives they wouldn't resort to self-degredation, and men aren't helping the problem by encouraging it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if I was truly satisfied with my life I wouldn't be trudging into the office to write software each day either. Does that make it morally wrong for my customers to use my work, that they're taking advantage of the fact that I have a family to support to make me degrade myself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not many people grow up chasing a dream of washing dishes or mowing lawns for a living either. Does that make it morally wrong to employ someone to do those things just because they can't get anything better and are willing to take what they can get?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When freely made and enjoyed by consenting adults there is nothing morally wrong with pornography either.

[insane]

And if I was truly satisfied with my life I wouldn't be trudging into the office to write software each day either. Does that make it morally wrong for my customers to use my work, that they're taking advantage of the fact that I have a family to support to make me degrade myself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not many people grow up chasing a dream of washing dishes or mowing lawns for a living either. Does that make it morally wrong to employ someone to do those things just because they can't get anything better and are willing to take what they can get?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, because those things are necessities. People need their lawns mowed, their dishes washed, their money for life. My problem isn't that pornography makes money; at least the women are getting something out of the self-degredation. It's the objectification of women that is so sick. I agree (to an extent) with Kantian ethics - treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.

[dwarfie76]

No, because those things are necessities. People need their lawns mowed, their dishes washed, their money for life. My problem isn't that pornography makes money; at least the women are getting something out of the self-degredation. It's the objectification of women that is so sick. I agree (to an extent) with Kantian ethics - treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see how pornography objectifies anyone any more than any other occupation. Even if you were to class having someone to wash your dishes and mow your lawns as a 'necessity' (wish I could afford those sort of necessities... I'm stuck on groceries and home loan repayments) There are plenty of situations where people take on work that they would otherwise not do just for someone else's gratification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason anyone would object to pornography, and not say... street musicians, is because music doesn't offend (as many) people's puritan sensibilities.

[mad4u689]

I'm a big fan of people being able to create their own "utopian" town if they so want to, even if I disagree with the way it's run. It would be an interesting experiment. I don't like how Jeb Bush called it a good example of the merging of faith and citizenship, because that makes it sound like he's a fan of the ideas the Catholic town is based on a large scale, but in theory, I'd like if people could create their own legal commune or whatever the hell they wanted. I mean, that's the ultimate anarchist ideal - self government - and if libertarians weren't so scared and felt they had to rely on a nationalist government, they'd support it, too, being the ultimate in freedom.

[dwarfie76]

and if libertarians weren't so scared and felt they had to rely on a nationalist government, they'd support it, too, being the ultimate in freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where do you get the idea that libertarians feel the need to rely on a nationalist government? Most libertarians I know are for minimalist government in all areas. People who want to rely on big government are 'statists' and they're the antithesis to libertarian ideals.

[mad4u689]

 

and if libertarians weren't so scared and felt they had to rely on a nationalist government, they'd support it, too, being the ultimate in freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where do you get the idea that libertarians feel the need to rely on a nationalist government? Most libertarians I know are for minimalist government in all areas. People who want to rely on big government are 'statists' and they're the antithesis to libertarian ideals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah - but the main difference separating libertarians from anarchists is that though they have the same basic principle (as little government as possible), libertarians are too scared to consider actually allowing anything outside the basic national government rules, though they think those should be as minimal as possible. They'd never consider letting a community actually govern itself without being subject to a higher sovereign power.

[dwarfie76]

Yeah - but the main difference separating libertarians from anarchists is that though they have the same basic principle (as little government as possible), libertarians are too scared to consider actually allowing anything outside the basic national government rules, though they think those should be as minimal as possible. They'd never consider letting a community actually govern itself without being subject to a higher sovereign power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Says who? Allowing like minded individuals to congregate and self govern is pretty close to most libertarians idea of utopia. The subjugation of individual liberty to a higher power runs contrary to libertarian philosophy. I'm not sure who you've been hanging around, but if they told you they were libertarians they're mistaken.

[mad4u689]

Well, from the (american) National Libertarian Party website, their ideals are individual freedom and sovereignty:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, most libertarians I've encountered still tend to think within the bounds of national identity and patriotism. You're right, I wouldn't go so far as to say they believe in national sovereignty... but they certainly believe in the right of the nation to act in war and to have basic laws (ie. no murder). An example of how their ideas are often tied strongly to national identity, from their website:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still, I'd vote libertarian 8)

[dusqi]

 

 

 

I'm a big fan of people being able to create their own "utopian" town if they so want to, even if I disagree with the way it's run. It would be an interesting experiment. I don't like how Jeb Bush called it a good example of the merging of faith and citizenship, because that makes it sound like he's a fan of the ideas the Catholic town is based on a large scale, but in theory, I'd like if people could create their own legal commune or whatever the hell they wanted. I mean, that's the ultimate anarchist ideal - self government - and if libertarians weren't so scared and felt they had to rely on a nationalist government, they'd support it, too, being the ultimate in freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the context of this town, what is it that local self-government would be able to do that a national government that upholds individual freedoms wouldn't be able to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's about pornography and contraception, like other people have said on this thread, why not just have people deciding not to use them themselves, within each family? Surely that's a more of a libertarian ideal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Catholics are only worried about not using contraception and pornography, then they just wouldn't use them - which they can already choose to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What this town is really about is not making a utopian town, it's about extreme Catholics saying "I don't want to live near other people that aren't following my own ideals. I wish everyone didn't use contraception and pornography was illegal - but since it isn't - i'm going to separate myself from the other people and pretend they don't exist."

[mad4u689]

As you know, I go to a very liberal school which is kind of its own little bubble. We don't have evangelists here. It's a self-segregated bubble... perhaps there isn't as great a diversity of opinion as there could be, but it's nice to live in an area with like-minded people, when I'm already (relatively) set in my opinions. There have been many experimental utopias in the past, so the Catholic community has precedent - just in America, some examples include the Rappites, the Shakers, the Amana community, the Oneida community, the Mormons, Owen's socialist free love atheist colony, Fourier's socialist colony. The first two were highly religious-based, while the Oneida community invovled large amounts of promiscuous sex, because they believed every woman was married to every man. The Mormons ran into trouble with the US government (and the American public) because they believed in polygamy, which was illegal under national laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utopian communities such as these are communities of people with similar beliefs, which is fundamentally different than allowing individuals to practice their own beliefs privately. Allowing individuals to form a community if they wish should surely be allowed.

[dwarfie76]

However, most libertarians I've encountered still tend to think within the bounds of national identity and patriotism. You're right, I wouldn't go so far as to say they believe in national sovereignty... but they certainly believe in the right of the nation to act in war and to have basic laws (ie. no murder).

 

 

 

Most libertarians believe that the sole function of a government is to protect the rights of it's citizens against those who would do it harm. A purely libertarian society would be overly vulnerable to attack from external sources. Although there would be some measure of protection - the richest members of the society would be able to hire security forces to protect their interests, which would then have a deterent effect and protect the interests of others to some extent, it would not be as efficient or as effective as having collectively maintained police and military forces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still, I'd vote libertarian 8)

 

 

 

Good work. I'm a member of the Australian Libertarian Society and the Liberal Democratic Party

[frogact]

If this is a private commune, I have no problem with it. Self-sustained private religious communites have existed here for a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's going to be a town with a legal and justice system, Under the US constitution, I have huge issues with it. That can not happen in the US. Not that I wouldn't love for every American citizen to be Christian but it can't be forced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seperation of church and state means government can't establish a religion, nor can they prevent anyone from freely expressing his own religion, which is why the first scenario is not a problem. A legal Catholic town would be a government established religion.

[Evilperson]

I guess it is okay, but I really hope they understand they must follow the National Laws still, even though they create their own "town".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find these people to be very selfish because part of life is dealing with other people and other peoples beliefs. It seems that either A) They think that they are too good for anyone else, B) They can't handle the fact that people have different opinions, likes, dislikes and preferences, or C) They have nothing better to do with their money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the thought of someone else buying pornography *Lets not get off topic and talk about morality* or AID's-Preventors or any other usefull (In my opinion) items really offends you enough to move to your own secluded place, then you probably shouldn't be in public for the lack of mental stability. By this I mean that people by now should be able to comprehend EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Since the only reason I see them moving to a city like this is because they are scared of anything differerant that isn't preached in their bible or taught by their minister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People now a days piss me off.

 

 

 

I personally think it is a very selfish, ignorant thing to do.

[____]

 

Still, I'd vote libertarian 8)

 

 

 

Good work. I'm a member of the Australian Libertarian Society and the Liberal Democratic Party

Last time I sat down and looked into the American political system, their Liberals were very different to that of Australias.

 

 

 

IIRC, their Liberals are our Labour (or something like that). I'll have to dig up the information to be certain.

[dwarfie76]

 

 

Still, I'd vote libertarian 8)

 

 

 

Good work. I'm a member of the Australian Libertarian Society and the Liberal Democratic Party

Last time I sat down and looked into the American political system, their Liberals were very different to that of Australias.

 

 

 

IIRC, their Liberals are our Labour (or something like that). I'll have to dig up the information to be certain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would be correct. Although they use the small "l" liberal as more of a general descriptior rather than indicating membership of a political party like our big "L" Liberals here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is not the same as the Liberal Party (LIB). I am not a member of the political party that currently forms the Australian federal government.