jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (88 posts)

How far can Liberalism take us?

  1. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    A Columbia University professor named David Epstein was arrested and charged with incest.  Seems he's been having a sexual relationship for the past few years with his 24 year old daughter.  Columbia University's response?  If they consent, what's wrong with that?

    REALLY?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Typical of liberalism these days.
      Columbia University should be shut down if that's their response.

      1. skyfire profile image76
        skyfireposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        So are we supposed to shut down vatican because there are pedophile priests in churches ?

        what ya think brenda ? wink

    2. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      come on brenda...why should students suffer for one idiotic comments...but isn't incest offense in usa?

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Oh yeah.  One we classify as a Biggie!  But according to Columbia, if they consented, so what!  Sick.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Indeed!

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes incest is an offense.

        And students would suffer more if Columbia isn't held accountable.   
        Many USA colleges these days are teaching crap to students.  Not only that, our elementary schools are falling into moral corruption at the hands of the likes of Arne Duncan under the sway of the immoral Obama.

        1. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          now why are you bringing obama into this episode..i understand you seem to hate obama but this case and obama are unrelated...

          1. Mikeydoes profile image78
            Mikeydoesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And there is no end in site, same thing would have happened had he been conservative and Bush were president, and my Aunt would have headlined the story.

            1. pisean282311 profile image60
              pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              i understand and suppose that is human...if one is on post he/she would be criticized for everything under the sun...

          2. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I'll bring Obama into whatever conversation I want to!
            And yes, his free-for-all attitude imposed upon us from his place of political power IS responsible for MOST of the push for immorality in USA laws.   He would probably say this incident is disgusting, while with the other side of his mouth he defends gay rights and tells children they know more than their grandparents.    Yet, if gay rights are valid (which they're not), then incest would be valid too.   It's a push for a total free-for-all, as I said, and the man sits in the White House and pretends to be goody-goody.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image78
              Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Would you change your mind about Obama if he became a religious freak conservative, doubled our national debt, get us involved in a useless war based on lies, start babbling like a total idiot, appoint his friends to high positions becasue they are "good Christians" (only to prove disasterous later)? So what if you don't like Obama. Get over it. We got over Bush serving two screwed up terms, and will be paying for it for the next 20+ years. 8 years of a conservative BS government, look where it got us!

    3. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Jeff Foxworthy once joked -

      You might be a redneck if.....
          your family tree doesn't branch.

      Deviations from the norm in sexual behavior don't seem to have a liberal or conservative bias. If the story of the relationship is true and was totally consentual, IMO, the only person with butt-in rights is the mother.

      However, as usual, you got the facts of the story wrong, skewed to your political prejudice. The response of Collumbia University was to put the professor on administrative leave.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I hope he's still in jail?

        And I hope the mother has two rights----the right to put the daughter over her knee and whip the crap outta her, and Lorena Bobbit rights to the father.

      2. Mikeydoes profile image78
        Mikeydoesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        YAY!!! Good answer!

        Not sure what Liberalism has to do with this. Should not be brought up in the conversation.

      3. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No Doug I didn't get the facts wrong.  Yes they put him on leave.  Yes they did support him and his actions and didn't see what was that wrong if it was consentual.  They pretty much admitted putting him on leave to placate the community.  In this country the mother is not the only person with butt-in rights as you claim.  Incest is ILLEGAL, period.  Using your logic I can kill one of my brothers and it's no body's business except my mom and dad's.  Seriously?  Is that your stance on incest?  In other words to hell with the child as long as the mom ain't upset?

        1. Mikeydoes profile image78
          Mikeydoesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not sure if you got the facts right or wrong, but I am sure if I went up to a liberal they would not like the idea of incest.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why not?  They're breaking every other taboo.
            Might as well go hog wild.

            1. ThomasE profile image74
              ThomasEposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Liberalism would argue that in general conduct should be legal unless it can be shown to harm society or other individuals, and incest harms society and other individuals because it tends to result in babies that are genetically damaged.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                LOL that assessment is laughable, because liberals will KILL a child in the womb!  And you say they're doing society a favor by being against incest!  What a crock!

                1. ThomasE profile image74
                  ThomasEposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  And conservatives eat babies.

                  It must make you upset that the conservatives in America killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, lied to Congress, lied to the public, Torture, Kill, Kidnap and rape innocent civilians.

                  Conservatives in America are against the constitution, apple pie, and Jesus.

                  Oh, sorry, I was just engaging in your level of argument.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL!  She probably won't get it, but good try.

                  2. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Typical.   You don't have a valid defense for validating abortion, so you try to deflect by attacking the God-given right that America has to defend its ground and its people.

          2. tobey100 profile image60
            tobey100posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It should and does make most NORMAL people's skin crawl.

    4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Liberalism?  Are you that desperate?  I followed the link and...

      Oh wait, you didn't provide one.  How much of the story did you get wrong?

    5. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I must align with many of the "liberals" on this one and say that any voluntary association between two adults is permissible in a free society.

      While I may not agree with the actions of this professor (your daughter, man? Come on...) I still don't think the government has any business arresting him if it was consensual.

      Now, if the sexual relationship BEGAN before the daughter was an adult, then that would be a problem.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Agreed. It's sick in my opinion. However if it's realy the case of two consenting adults....

  2. kerryg profile image88
    kerrygposted 6 years ago

    "Columbia University's response?  If they consent, what's wrong with that?"

    Where are you getting this? The news sources I've seen have him put on administrative leave while he awaits sentencing (up to four years in jail if convicted). I don't know Columbia's policies, but it seems possible that they couldn't do anything more since she was technically above the age of consent and not (as far as I know) a Columbia student. He hasn't been convicted yet, but if/when he is, he'll probably be fired.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe Arianna Huffington will bail him out and use him as her toy boy for a while, since he's known to spout liberalism on her site, anti-Palin stuff, anti-conservative stuff.

      1. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Incest is a crime independent of political leanings, Brenda. Some of the most conservative societies in the world have practiced it as a matter of course, and your notion that liberals feel the need to go "hog-wild" on every taboo known to man is based on a faulty understanding of both social liberalism and human psychology.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You might want to look at Doug's post above and my response to it.   YES, it is LIBERALISM that attempts to make excuses for such crimes and perversion as this subject.   Liberalism pushes for the concept of there being no definite rights and wrongs.
          Conservatism doesn't do that.  But indeed the current trend now is starting to be that, since liberals are forcing their carp upon us, conservatives shouldn't be held to accountability either.    I'm tempted to feel that way too!   But it wouldn't be right.

          1. kerryg profile image88
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Social liberalism tends to take a utilitarian or even libertarian perspective to many moral issues. If your actions don't infringe on the rights or liberties of others, then you should have the right to do them. It's not a lack of "definite rights and wrongs," it's a different understanding of them.

            As moral standards go, I actually find it much more consistent and well-defined than religious guidelines, since you guys are always messing around with things like continuing revelation and such. Why does "continuing revelation" make it okay to eat cheeseburgers, but not marry a person of the same sex? Seems awfully convenient to me!

            1. pisean282311 profile image60
              pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              agreed and it is social liberalism which has led to human development....otherwise we would still be preserving jungle days traditions...

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Like..."me Tarzan, you Jane"?   lol
                At least the roles of man and woman were well-defined there.  Much better than today.  I think I'd rather live in the real jungle than to live among wishy-washy people who don't even know how to define their own natures or genders!

                1. kerryg profile image88
                  kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually many indigenous cultures have multiple different gender identities, not just two.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Arrgh.  You actually mean multiple mis-identifications of gender and identity.  Just because someone is messed-up doesn't mean they should become labeled normal.  People with problems need help, not sanction of their mess.

                2. Pandoras Box profile image68
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You mean people who won't let you decide it for them.

                3. pisean282311 profile image60
                  pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  @brenda role of man and woman are not permanent ones...they keep changing and adapting is what makes survival easy...humans are adaptive in nature...we can't freeze things because change is always permanent...

              2. Pandoras Box profile image68
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, and we'll continue to.

                That's why conservatives hate us. They've never been able to stop social progress for long and they never will.

            2. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              The meat-eating issue is resolved in the Bible.  God gave Peter a vision.  Wanna know the Book, Chapter and verse, or are you just determined to pick at the little straws that you choose in order to compare apples to roadkill?

              1. pisean282311 profile image60
                pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                conservatives != christians alone...world is much bigger than being christian or muslim or jews...conservatives are there in every country and every part of the world and so are liberals...both are way of thinking...

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Nobody denies that.
                  Still doesn't liberal views right.  Just because evil exists doesn't mean it should be validated as right.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image60
                    pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    brenda liberals have always challenged traditions and would keep doing so...they would get it right at some time and wrong in some times...but challenging existing system only brings progress...who would change if no one challenges that...liberal way of thinking is very important to question ,challenge and form new ways...yes everything liberal does or say wont be right...i agree to it but that applies to every school of thought...change is only thing which is permanent...none can stop change but changing in what direction is what one needs to debate...if we have more and more divorce or incest or extra martial and we call it liberal, i dont think that is way to be...but at same time sticking to something because that is how we were trained to tag it under right or wrong is also not way forward...

              2. kerryg profile image88
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's exactly what I'm talking about. First God says cheeseburgers are an abomination, then He says they're okay. How do you know He's not going to pop down tomorrow and say that He's become concerned about overpopulation and therefore He wants everybody to stop procreating and become a gay/lesbian? He's flip-flopped before.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  He doesn't flip-flop.  He simply changed the punishment from phycial to spiritual.  He gave mankind literal rules to set the basis for right and wrong, and then challenged them (us) to choose right.

                  And if He wanted to decrease the population, He sure as shootin' wouldn't tell people to perform immorality to accomplish it.  He could simply wipe 'em out literally if He wanted to, like He did the original Sodom.

                  1. kerryg profile image88
                    kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    So did he say cheeseburgers are okay or didn't he? You're contradicting yourself.

                    Funny you should mention Sodom...

                    And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

                    And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

                    Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

                    And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

                    And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

                    And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

                    Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

                    And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

                    And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

                    Genesis 19:30-38

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is probably a gem of truth to consider. The 'liberal' administration of Columbia probably is not eager to decide the personal & private matters of consenting adults. Social conservatives - I won't name names - can't wait to judge the virtue of people they don't know. I find that far more revolting than incest.

      In a previous post on incest, the overwhelming response was that, given control of conception to prevent the statistically higher incidence of genetic defectives,  it was between the adults in the situation to decide. Not long ago, all 'decent' people would be aghast at the prospect of interracial coupling, which was illegal in many states.

      Attitudes change. It's their business.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Doug, you are consistent, I'll say that.  You deliberately choose to allow your hatred for conservatives to overpower your moral compass (if you have one).
        And apparently you happened upon that "genetic" concept as you googled like I did.  LOL    Perfect example of the "new" liberalism affecting every area of social morality,  saying that all the evils are "normal" or "genetic".

        But the most frightening thing, Doug, is that you, like some others, continue to equate sexual perversion with racial characteristics.  THAT is indeed revolting.

        And you can try like hell to qualify all that with your attitude that "attitudes change" and "it's their business", but it still won't make it right.   If you really think it's "their business", then your mind is more perverted than I thought.

    3. Reality Bytes profile image83
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this



      He is innocent, until resolved through the Courts otherwise.  So this would make sense.

  3. Pandoras Box profile image68
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Link to the official statement you refer to, please.

    What was Columbia supposed to do? Are they in his bedroom? Did they even know? This is between him and the authorities, blaming the guy's boss makes no sense.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Yup...no conservative ever has committed incest or rape or murder...just liberals. Incest is wrong and it is illegal. Period.

    Still...people do have to be convicted of crimes first before they are fired and jailed. Or is the America you want one where people are jailed before trial?

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      how are liberals and incest related is what i dont understand out here...

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly smile I guess because this guy is a liberal as far as I know. However, his political views are not related to this alleged crime.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Sure they are.

          Sorry, but liberals don't get to pick and choose at their whim, though they do try.

          Anybody who calls themselves conservative and against incest, while they are for gay rights and abortion and such, are actually liberals.
          Conservatism isn't something that's confused or confusing.  A person is either a liberal or a conservative; there is no middle ground when it comes to those moral issues.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Ah, I see, so this completely explains why the divorce and teen pregnancy rates are higher in red states than in blue states.  All that conservative morality and such.  No picking and choosing at their whim.  Nope, none at all.  roll

            Your logic is just as compelling as Tobey's.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              "Your logic is just as compelling as Tobey's."

              Zero equals zero.

          2. pisean282311 profile image60
            pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            lol conservatives are always sticking to tradition while liberals are always trying to form new ways...it is age long battle...liberals won most of that as history shows...but incest is something which we are hard wired against...if we ask 6.8 billion people in the world ...99% would be against it irrespective of liberal or conservative...

            1. kerryg profile image88
              kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              But different societies have different standards, remember. A LOT of societies allow first cousins to marry, whereas here in America that's considered to be as gross as allowing brothers and sisters to marry.

              1. pisean282311 profile image60
                pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                you have made good point.....cousin marriages are allowed in Islam too i guess (muslim hubbers , correct me if i am wrong)..in my country muslims normally marry their cousins...in some parts of my country even marriage between maternal uncle and niece is considered ok...while where i live it would be considered to be big time sin...so it varies among sub cultures , ethnic and at times on faith too...

            2. Paul Wingert profile image78
              Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Incest and endbreeding is definately on the wierd side unless you belong to the European Monarch class up untill the early 20th century (maybe still continues in some countries). So arresting this guy for incest, if that's the case, is senseless. Simply because the two were consenting adults. Was his daughter arrested? You know it takes two to tangle. But I do believe there is a law against teacher/student sexual relationships. If he was arrested for that, that makes better sense.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      We prefer burning them at the stake.  Alternatively, we bind their hands and feet and toss them into a lake.  If they are innocent, God will keep them from drowning.

      You Canucks could learn a thing or two about state-enforced morality.

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Well thank goodness you are not the keeper of morality for the world.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That would be thanking evil, not goodness.

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    So, you want to be the keeper of morality for the world? Aren't you special.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It's libs like you who are trying to shout how special they are.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yup...that makes sense roll

  7. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Let's not confuse the subject. I am referring to a 24-year-old woman who chose to have sexual relations with her father.

    The argument from Broom Hilda is that it's wrong because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's wrong. Also, God told her so, though I can't find it in the 10 Commandments or any of Christ's teachings..

    The answer why it's taboo, according to anthropology, is the high risk of genetic defectives. That's an elective risk with contraception and a stupid risk to take. But if there is no prospect of procreation, just WHY is it wrong?

    Can any conservative offer a logical answer?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Because a father is supposed to be a father, not a sex partner.  If I have to explain why that's wrong to you Doug, you need more help than I'm willing to waste my time with on you.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        In other words, you can't find a logical reason.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          In other words, you can't find your conscience, if you still have one.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            LOL. Asking for a logical answer really threw you. I have an informed conscience, which is different from a fundamentalist religious conscience.

            I am not trying to sell you on the idea of sex with your father, which might involve necrophelia, which is kinda creepy. On the legal issue, I am cautious about 'crimes' without victims. This is a classic example, as is smoking grass in your own home which you grew yourself.

            If you don't like it, don't do it. But under what justification do you peep in people's houses to see what they are doing if it doesn't harm you?

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think you can make your case without calling people names.  Brenda offers some odd opinions, but I don't think she is a witch. 

      Brenda, correct me if I'm wrong.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What on earth made you think I was talking about Brenda?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It seemed logical.  If you were not, (all evidence to the contrary)  I ask God's forgiveness for my false accusation.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I have known many witches in my time, Wiccans that is, of the Church of Wicca. Almost without exception they were gentle and open-minded people who loved the earth, with a sophisticated though unconventional view of the afterliife (no hell).  Not at all like Broom Hilda.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image78
              Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I dated a woman who is into Wicca and I know a couple other people who are Wiccians and Pagens. I agree with you, Doug. They're more down to earth than most Christians I know.

  8. manlypoetryman profile image78
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

    All I got'ta say is:

    "Life's too short to listen to Liberals!" Ha! lol

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals live longer though.  They have fewer fear-induced cardiac problems and they rarely shoot themselves or each other with their precious firearms.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Most hard core, right wing, Rush loving, conservative Repulicans live in constant fear of what, I don't know. With Obama in office it's back to the "fear the black man" thing again. Let them live in fear and hope they don't develope ulcers or any other stress related health issues. If they do, lets see if tey take advantage of any of the health care bill benefits that they severely oppose.

  9. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    "How far can Liberalism take us?"

    To the scene of the crash?

    1. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well, it does appear that it's where were headed.....

 
working