'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[Skybird]

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are. I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.

I wouldn't have thought that you would use any religion to back up your arguments. Is the concept arbitrary? Is it not? I don't know. As I've said, you have some points.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.

I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.

No, I don't accuse you for sticking to your guns. Your points are good ones. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. For my part, I've only said why I personally don't oppose this.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.

The truth is, as I said, I'm not trying to convince or change you. I'm just stating my feelings on the subject.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.

Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it. Again, on that point, I see you as the enemy of freedom. And you ignored my constant claim that all I ever defended was the right to erect a building. Bringing that up again and saying I "entangled" myself is the same as shouting "I won that time", when you did no such thing.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are.

And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.

To that I say that you don't know me at all. You read into my words what you want to, and ignore anything I say to the contrary. Once again, I have said that your points are valid, and I've explained as carefully as I can why I feel the way I do, but you drop right back into the old discussion of what you think my concept of freedom is. You're arguing against what you want me to have said, not what I actually said.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.

You say that, and I don't believe it. I'm not accusing you, I'm merely expressing my distrust of anyone's motives in general. It looks to me like there's more here than meets the eye, and as always I could easily be wrong.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.

And to my mind it's only discrimination if it actually causes harm, and again I don't see how any hetero person, or the "institution" of marriage would be harmed by this.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Leasing mothers as "breeders". Third party inseminators. Laboratory assistants.

I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Not only is the term "marriage" not so arbitrary that it can just include homosexual partnerhips, but raising these to the same level of social acceptance and recognition as well as tax benefits and financial revenues obviously relativises this status given and accepted and ruled for families. Plus it is damage in being a discrimination against singles. The special status of one group is only special as long as it is exycluded from other groups.

I added histgorxy and relgion only for the sake of completeness, to show that also in history acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages as equal are an exception from the rule, and that the big world relgions also speak out against it. While I do not much argue with them or moral issues, I would have these two things on my side as well, if I would.

Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it.

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.

And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

You may see it like that. But I do not accept everything to be arbitrary in defintion of terms, and logical consusions that are not being shown wrong I refuse to give up. I try to form my opinions in that way so that later on I need to correct them as little and as rarely as possible. Somwetimes that is not possible, I feel. Then I refuse to form an opinion on something and to take a stand and defend it. But if I arrange my thoughts in such a way so that I do not see them often in need to correct them, I take that as a compliment for my thinking.

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case. And if indeed I have laid out many arguments and points that totally excluded morals, then I rate this as false talking about me and putting something in my mouth, and simplifying it and distoritng it. And after ten years in this forum I am a bit allergic against that. I assume in your favour that you maybe were not thinking about me in the main when writing that reply, however much of what your communication partner at that time had written also was not "just moral judgements".

[Skybird]

Leaving it here, third attempt.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Leaving it here, third attempt.

Are you sure,

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.

Thanks. That's the best laugh I've had all week. Your selective memory is a wonderful thing.

I entered that argument with a simple contention: that unless some existing law was broken the muslims had a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning commission said they could. You turned it into a diatribe on Islam in general, using Popper to prove points that had nothing to do with that thread. Basically you shifted the argument to your pet point, started in on my "absolutism", and when I explained that my statement wasn't a stopping, but a starting point, went into pages-long diatribes about how I wanted to hand over everything we hold dear to the great-evil-of-our-time.

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all. Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

So yes, you won. You proved absolutely that you are a master at changing the topic to what you want it to be, creating a straw-man argument that you can then destroy and claim victory, and carefully not mentioning the original topic.

That sounds just like your new sig.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all.

Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.

Instead one waited, until it was too late. You follow that pattern on a similiar inhumane, totalitarian and supremacist, deeply racist ideology.

Islamic representatives time and again tell the world that they want to take over the West. Highest politicians, presidents, clerics let you know. Famous Islamic institgutions of highest rank, and univesity scholars tell their followers what to do regarding the West. It is also a message form the Quran. Can'T you just take people and ideologies by their words for which they are fully responsible, even more so when history has shown them right, right, right? And when the basic ideology on which they found, call for it? What makes you know Islam better than Islam knows itself?

Instead you now defend the freedom of speech of that Nazism that has costed your country tens of thousands of dead and that has caused one of the biggest crimes in man's history and the biggest mass killing known. For the same cinfused reason you defend other ultraextremist organisation'S freedom of speech as well, the KKK, and more. If that Nazism still is not enough to let you limit its freedoms, then it is clear that not only you will not resist to Islam either, even more so since it is not striking openly, but by silent infiltration, demograophic chnage ovcer deacdes and brain washing.

Those not learning from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper. Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it". Sorry, that is neither to be taken serious, nor is it to be described as anything different than "naive" and "suicidal". And that's why Popper had a go at it in "The Open Society": it does damage to society.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it. Instead you keep on telling me, even here, that you always take into account that you could be wrong - but that does not lead you to any consequences. To me it sounds like an alibi to actually not defend freedom where you say you are for freedom. And the circle closes and we are back to that freedom dilemma that you still have not solved, although it is a fundamental problem, and in your argument: illustrates a hopeless inner contradiction.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong. Many people think like you think. That'S why Popper'S freedom paradoxon has found entrance into literature, under the title of freedom paradoxon or freedom dilemma. Because it proves that you are wrong - by falsification. And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest - which also destroys freedom: that freedom that holds justice not for just the rich and the strong and the loudest yelling, but for all (that do not seek to destroy freedom).

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.

So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper.

Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.

Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it".

And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it.

And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong.

And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?

Many people think like you think.

You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.

And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.

And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

Thw writing was on the wall many years before 1939. In case of Islam, the writing is on the wall sionce more than a thousand years. You could have known what Hitler was about when reading "Mein Kampf" and observing the evcents in Germany and how germany chnaged. You can know what Islam is about when reading the Quran and the Hadith, or watching the fate of those places that got conquered (Islam represents the longest lasting most successful military and ideological conquest project known in all man's history). You can also know about Islam when looking at its history, and whether or not there is a huge discrpeance between Muhammad'S teachings and example, and the historic events caused by Islam.

You just do not want to know, Steve. Instead in a way you just claim indirectly to know Islam better than Islam reveals itself as by the word of Allah himself.

[quote]
Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.[/quote)
And once again you do not get it. Yopu accuse me of destroying freedom when limiting it for the enmy so that he cannot destroiy freedom. Youz alternmtaive to mine: accepting destruction of freedom in the name of freedom.

When freedom has been destroyed, of what worth is your oh so noble intention then, eh? You will not start to defend it before it is too late and you have no more freedom left to defenmd freedom. See, that is what the paradoxon of freedom is about. Are you really so nut that you do not understand this?

And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.

I waltz around your idealism? You have no idelaism, Steve. You have a suicidial illusion that creates the space and opportunity to see being destroyed what you claim to stand up for. That is not the same.

And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.

Oh , I have, a hundred times, it's just not what you want to hear, becasue you deal in absolutes. I refused a hundred times now that limiting some freedoms for the enemy of freedom in order to prevent him from successfully destrioying freedom saves more freedom and beenfits the freedom of those wisahing for freedom, but that leaving the other to destory freedom, totally destroys freedom. If you think that makes me the same like the one wishing to destroy freedom, then you are nuts, totally nuts. And you also have lost any grounds and reasons by which you could defend any wars that have been fought in attempts to overthrow tyranny.

Once again you hopelessly entangle yourself over this. What's wrong with you? You have been falsified by that freedom paradoxon/dilemma. If you can solve that dilemma, Steve, then youz would be the first man on Earth able to do that, and with s soltuion to that dilemma, I would will to convert to your thinking. Until then I call you suicidal, and nuts. Not to mention: unrealistical, nbecasue even in your country limitations of freedom for the benefit of freedom in general are everyday rule.

And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?

So many times you need until you can show how your ideal could make a chnage in reality witrhout destroying freedom. Because only then me and others would be willing to listen to you. As long as you assist the desatroyers of freedom and call that freedom as an ideal, you are dangerous, and must be stopped, because if you would have your way, that wpould be the end of freedom - becasue there are so many people wanting to destroy it in the world.

Ideals - are not good enough, and intentions mean not much more. It is the deed and its consequence that decides the value of your choice - not how you meant it to be.

You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.

I have understood you perfectly already back then. It's just that your thinkling is so self-contradictory that it does not only not convince at all, but instead even alarms me. I will not spare you to remind you of how self-contradictory you are in your understanding of freedom.

And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.

I have, even in explicit reply to such demands. And if I recall it correctly you were one of those who nevertheless ignored to take note of that - and demanded me, as if nothing had happoened, that I should explain it. And now I should do it once again.

Well, that is a bit too far leading to do it ONCE again. I just say this again,m as IU have said many times before: most of Islamic values are incompatible with Western values (inclduing your freeedom, Steve, Islam would make short bloody process of what you understand freedom to be). Thus I do not believe in a modernisation of Islam , since that would elad to somethign that is not basing on God'S will anymore, and when it is not based on the Quran and in conformity with it, it cannot be "Islam". Any conception of integration has to take this into account, and it also is the reason why Muslim integration fails in every Wetsern nation where it is being tried since over 40 years. Islam does not want to integrate. Islam wants to make others submit instead.

My advise is the same as I have said many times now: migrants either fully integrate in their target nations, or thexy pack their things and leave, going back to where they came from. Inmtegration of Muslims means necessartily that they become apostates and leave Islam and and muhammed's Quran behind.

And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?

I have. I said it is a mockery, I linked to the terroiost background of the hatefiulled figure initiating it and that many of you Americans mistake to be a wellmeaning moderate where instead he preaches for the fall of America when he is outside your ciuntry, and I said that damn thing should not be built. Hiowever, the issue we started to fight over, was not that mosque, and dertailed threads are common ion this forum. We two engaged explicitly over your derailed concept of "absolute freedom or no freedom at all".

This is useless. Tell me when you can solve that freedom paradoxon, then you will find me listening fully interested. Else... well...

Actually what I always call the freedom paradoxon is more correctly entitled the tolerance paradoxon. But the meaning is the same.
To recall it:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

However, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Show this to be wrong or show how you can practice your differing concept of freedom/tolerance without allowing the other to destroy your freedom when he abuses your tolerance. You whole idea of freedom stands or falls with your ability to do either the one or the other of these two. If you can, then we talk again. If you cannot, then I have nothing more to say.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest

That "unlimited freedom" thing? No one is suggesting it except you. The only ones I've seen mention "unlimited freedom" are you and Popper. Unlimited freedom would indeed lead to anarchy, etc. That's why our freedom is very much limited. My freedom to do what I want ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. Their freedom to do what they want ends when it infringes on mine. As has been stated elsewhere, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Building a mosque does nothing to infringe on your freedom. Not allowing someone to build on land they own does infringe on their right.

[Sailor Steve]

I chose to address this separately.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case.

That's true, and I apologize. I guess I am incapable of seeing how the arguments made can actually be the starting ground for opposition. It seems to me that there must be something deeper going on, and if there isn't then it's my fault for not recognizing it.