I very much enjoyed reading your comment, and you generally flirt with a point or two of contention I also declared in my initial comment, despite having commented rather positively toward the OP. Two notions in your comment have spurred me to reply. The first is regarding "morality". The OP altogether skirts defining the term [for whatever reason, good or bad], but I enjoyed the OP's use of the term. I would admit that's it's an extremely hot topic in and of itself though, but here I interpret it in basic fashion, not involving religious dogma or even code of ethic, but simply regarding notions of happiness and the general pursuit thereof. I can't see how the OP can not raise the issue of morality in that sense. I don't contend with your use of the term either but for an insurmountable aching to add a few words to your main sentence regarding it...
"I think it should be a requirement to have experienced something before making moral judgement" for others!
Is that acceptable? Have I overstepped my bounds?
The other notion in your comment that spurs me to reply regards your fear of Social Conservatism. It's unfortunately true that many [including many of those who refer to themselves as such] use the term willy nilly as interchangeable with Neocon, and that scares me too a bit. But they remain very different, non-interchangeable terms in essence. A Social Conservative isn't automatically even against marijuana use or fornication. In fact you have shown signs of Social Conservatism even via your comment. A Social Conservative is one who wishes to preserve an organic sense of continuum in cultural normalcy apart from state disruption. To protect norms of cannabis use from non-local intervention is to be socially conservative. Perhaps you will enjoy this following presentation as much as I have. It describes where my mind goes when the likes of Rand Paul correctly claim themselves Social Conservatives...
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of po