I feel like just writing right now

[thenextbesthang]

The topics of this post are going to be about religion, the nature of man, and how it relates to many of the questions in US politics.
Ultimately, I want people to think about this question
What constitutes happiness?
-

All through elementary-school, middle school, high school, pretty much all public. I worked really hard (I still do now, but thats not the point I am trying to make).

In middle school, I went to school in the mornin. After school, I'd usually come fairly straight home, unless there was some other thing that kept me at school, whether it was chorus or friends or whatever. Most of the time after school, I chilled with my brother and his friends (my brother is 3 years older than I am). We did whatever some guys do (usually would play video games).

In high school, I would go to school at 7 in the mornin (impossibly earlier for me), and when I joined track for 3 1/3 years, it usually means that I would come home at 7:30 in the eveningish (7:00). Spent next few hours eating and doing work.

Now onto my thoughts.

Why is this the way that my life is? In general, why do people spend so much time doing things, without really slowing down? We spend all of our day going from place to place to place, barely giving ourselves a time to breath. Its all about what people are doing, how well that they do it, and if they are getting goals accomplished.

From dawn till dusk in education, we spend the vast majority of our time workin or doing stuff, without really appreciating it. It don't matter whether it is actually going to classes, studying, joining a team, doing some of the arts, whatever. I guarantee you, most of the people that go to classes are only doing it for a particular reason, not because they actually enjoy doing it. All I know is what I know. I ran track for 3 1/3 years, not because I necessarily enjoyed the physical act of running, but because I liked the competition and the social atmosphere that it provided me. It didn't necessarily make me feel happy. Sure it made me feel good at some times, but there were also times that it mad me feel bad at some times (injuries, times when I was not around other people takin the train home, or when all the friends I had made on the team graduated, w/e). Even on the team, it was a collection of individuals on a common team, rather than a team dispersed among many people.

Then I got to college. At college there was still work, but most of the time I was free to do whatever I choosed - hang out with friends (madd lot), do some karate, go to hillel (i'm jewish fyi). Even last year, I felt that a lot of my friends weren't friends, per say, but just people that were always in my room. It was as if my individiuality was still present even after the first full year of college. I felt changed since I had left high school, definately, but I didn't necessarily feel happy about myself. I felt more confident, whcih is unequivically a plus, but I didn't really feel happy.

This year, I came back with a vast increase of confidence from the summer. Recently, my friend has essentially turned into, or at least is far in the process of, a orthodox jew ( we drink a lot...a lot....a lot). So naturally since my interest is in politics, we started having discussions. Most of the stuff he said is retarded. I tell him that all the time. But one night I went with him to a Chabad house that is just off-campus. There, there was a 20 sumthin year old rabbi with his beautiful wife, and like 2-3 children. There I came to the realization that they were both orthodox jewish, an active part of the jewish community; spiritually, they were cut off from 'greater society' or what i refer to as 'market america (white america)'. And, they appeared to be happy. Whether or not they were happy is another question, but I believe to the fullest amount that I have been given the ability to believe that they are generally happy. You can't fake happiness.

So there I had it. What makes them so much happier then what I had been for the past year in college, and for high school, and whenever? I thought about it for a while. I noticed what they did; every friday night, at their house, they had people over for shabbat; they studied torah, they raised kids, whatever. I made the realization that the way that they participated in judaism explains a lot of their actions. Dear god, I thought, a very religious person...acting happy?

What is it about judaism that made them happy, or made them fufilled in some way, shape, or form? Here, I end my observations, and just talk about my conclusions.

They weren't happy because they were jewish. There are many jews, who do not consider themselves happy. Being jewish does not equal being happy.
What was it then? I cannot prove it, but I think that they were happy because they were part of a community, and solidly part of that community. They believed that they were part of that community. Its not about the laws, its not abuot the teachings that they were probably following. I don't know exactly the teachings of judaism. But no matter. They were happy when they knew that they were in the presence of other jews, and when everyone is rejoicing in the fruits of life. They were happy when they were toasting over shabbat, they were happy when they were makin music, doin all with people from their jewish community.

In short, what made them was not the fact that people were from a particular religion, but that they were from a particular family. Sure I may have nothing in relation to this guy, but we are sort of an extended family, with a distant but shared identity. We don't follow the same laws, but we were both there at mt sinai to recieve moses's 2 tablets, we both look to jerusalem, both look towards israel, both have some sort of relation about the hebrew language, and both believe in the presence of adonai.

Then I started thinkin abuot, what constitutes a community? Looking at my particular life, the Jewish community, the things that first come to mind are as follows:
A) A large enough amount of people so that their is always opportunities to meet new people.
B) Life, and the things that make life special, are promoted beyond things that don't make life special.
C) People have a shared identity.
D) People you can rejoice in life with, and truthfully feel good about doing something.
E) A common something that binds you together.
- I'm sure those other things,and even this list isn't completly thought through.

Once I realized this, I asked myself, why don't I put more faith in god and the jewish community, and the various other communities I belong to. Once I started doing that, I found that my life changed dramatically. No longer am I dependent on girls to keep my focus on life's goals, of eventually being a husband and a father (arg, I think thats the first time I ever admitted that -_-). I take a look at the community, keep my faith in god, and I am able to percieve life in a mystical sort of way.

After that, I started contemplating the nature of god. God is too infinite for any mortals to ever come close to comprehending. So trying to analyze gods nature is pointless. However, we can analyze its effects. God is an all powerful being, that is connected with the way that we view politics, life, nature, etc. God creates a certain style of living, a certain set of laws. God's law is brought to the people by the prophets, and is taught to the people by the teachers of its will. In a succinct sort of way, god is a certain style of life. The prophets bring the style of life from the unknown to the people. And the teachers teach a certain style of life to the people.

When I hear talk of a new world order, when I hear talk of how religion is responsible for most of the wars of history, when I hear how people should have the ability to do whatever they want, when I hear that people should spend their entire lives workin jobs they hate to buy **** they don't want, I ask...does that make you happy? A new world order could only come about if religion/communities were pretty much negated in the lives of people. I'd like to see someone argue against that.
To the claim that religion is responsible for the wars of history...I ask you, is it religion, or is it demoguages that usurp the allegiences of the people for their own sadistic purposes?
To the claim that liberty and freedom should not be violated...is the goal in life to be happy or is the goal in life to be able to do whatever you want?

To sum up, my feelings are:
The essential part of religion is not the teachings, its the community, and the family-feeling.
Religion will always be dwarfed out in a society where most people participate in non-relgious activites, or think non-religious things, the vast majority of their lives.
For many years I missed the greater points of life; when I was like that, I could become satisfied, but as easily become unsatisfied.
A community is a group of people that (see list above). Most importantly, they are people who you can share life with.
The general mode of trying to promote 'freedom' and 'liberty' is wrong; that is the case, because freedom and liberty without happiness is pointless.
If people want to restore the general spirit of America, you have to restore the common god of America; the teachings of the enlightenment; and get rid of the teachings of the centralizing world.
Centralizing government runs hand in hand with decreasing community influence, increasing freedom and liberty, but decreasing ability of people to feel happy.
Decentralizing government runs hand in hand with increasing community influence, decreasing freedom and liberty, but greater happiness and public spirit.
Being happy means that you are in the presence of god.
God is a being that spawns whatever community you live in.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

To sum up, my feelings are:
Religion will always be dwarfed out in a society where most people participate in non-relgious activites, or think non-religious things, the vast majority of their lives.

Isn't it fantastic? Or do you have a problem with freedom from religion?

The general mode of trying to promote 'freedom' and 'liberty' is wrong; that is the case, because freedom and liberty without happiness is pointless.

Being happy means that you are in the presence of god.

Thats happiness for you, not that anyone can prove that they are in the presence of god.

You dare attack the cause of liberty with such an argument?

If people want to restore the general spirit of America, you have to restore the common god of America; the teachings of the enlightenment; and get rid of the teachings of the centralizing world.

You're talking in ambiguous terms. What "general spirit of America" do you speak of. The only thing this nation has ever agreed on has been the constitution which supports the cause of liberty that you have such contempt for.

Honestly if you're opposed to promoting liberty, why are you even interested in America?

Centralizing government runs hand in hand with decreasing community influence, increasing freedom and liberty, but decreasing ability of people to feel happy.

Your logic doesn't follow. Freedom doesn't mean you have a decreased ability to be happy, its the contrary. You sound like you're upset that freedom has lead people away from your god.

Decentralizing government runs hand in hand with increasing community influence, decreasing freedom and liberty, but greater happiness and public spirit.

How about a nation that we're all free to value and do what we want to do? Wouldn't that be better, consider you can already organize into whatever communities you would like? Or is it the freedom to do otherwise that you would like cut short?

F*** the tribe.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Isn't it fantastic? Or do you have a problem with freedom from religion?

I think you mis-interpret what I say. However, my point was really as follows; the primary teachings of religion are stupid, but at the very least,it provides a community for common people to live in, which in undeniably good. Communities, while religion does not have a monopoly on em, are undeniably good, and are what we should strive for.

Thats happiness for you, not that anyone can prove that they are in the presence of god.

You dare attack the cause of liberty with such an argument?

Again, whats the point of being able to do what you want, if it only leads to bad ends? My general point is that god is not really a traditional god as defined by christianity, judaism, w/e. God is a being that creates a certain styleof life; as such, being in the presence of life, or gods direct creations, makes people happy. There is no 'religious', traditional 'religious', aspect to it.

You're talking in ambiguous terms. What "general spirit of America" do you speak of. The only thing this nation has ever agreed on has been the constitution which supports the cause of liberty that you have such contempt for.

Pride in the nation. Not being bitterly divided over whether we are an imperial power, or sent from heaven to help free the world from tyranny. So many people today, for a good reason, think that we are an empire; that we torture, that we hold 'enemy combatants', that we suspend habeas corpus, that our government only looks after the rich and not the poor, and many other things.
I read in books how after the war of 1812, this nation was more united, and there was such a time of national pride, that there even ceased to be party conflicts for a few years. Tell me; what kind of national pride does the war in Iraq engender? What kind of national pride does the war on terror engender? People flock to the domain of our national government not because they necessarily want to, but because the general security is threatend by terrorism, and the central government can protect us best. Tell me, is allegience based on fear, the same thing as allegience based on pride?

Your logic doesn't follow. Freedom doesn't mean you have a decreased ability to be happy, its the contrary. You sound like you're upset that freedom has lead people away from your god.

There is no 'my god' to you, or 'your god' to me. Each person has a different god. Of course there are similar gods, such as the fact that multiple people believe in jesus, or adonai, or whatever. However, as the number of gods that people believe in proliferate, each one becomes smaller and smaller. With each community beoming smaller and smaller, yes people still can find happiness, but only within their very small community.
Its well documented that as the government engages more in the lives of citizens, voluntary communities will engage less. Eventually, there will come a point for everyone that is involved in greater america,or 'market america', will no longer really have separate communities, but one big community centered around the government. Thats not a community where people care abuot each other, or where people can really rejoice in the fruits of life with each other. So on that logic, I said that an increasing centralized government will not being increasing happiness, but decreasing. Implicit in what I said is that if people go out an consciensly form communities, they be happier, but less and less people are doing that.

How about a nation that we're all free to value and do what we want to do? Wouldn't that be better, consider you can already organize into whatever communities you would like? Or is it the freedom to do otherwise that you would like cut short?

Never did I once say that we should legislate a community that someone can belong to. I did, however, say that we should make it so that our community upholds the standards of making life. Don't confuse my stance with 'pro life'. You should look at a particular legislative act; and ask not the question of whether it would provide results, or whether it is useful; but ask the question, does this legislative act increase peoples abilities to be happy, and increase peoples abilities to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Does this legislative act provide results, at the cost of cutting off the individual from the community around him or her?
You have this notion that we should all be free to do what we want to do. Yeswe should, but we should always try to promote life, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty, taken to an extreme, is bad. Liberty, properly understood, promotes life and the pursuit of happiness. Sound like some phrases you know? I'm not against cutting out liberty, only i'm against certain institutions, or ways of living, that cut off the individual fromhis community.

 

[thenextbesthang]

i guess i forgot to add this;
centralizing government comes with increasing individual liberty and individual freedom, but decreasing ability to associate with other people how you want to.

de-centralizing government comes with decreasing individual liberty and individual freedom, but increasing ability to assoicate with other people how you want to.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I think you mis-interpret what I say. However, my point was really as follows; the primary teachings of religion are stupid, but at the very least,it provides a community for common people to live in, which in undeniably good. Communities, while religion does not have a monopoly on em, are undeniably good, and are what we should strive for.

Your logic doesn't follow, how can stupid teachings provide us with an undeniably good community. And why are communities what we should strive for? As an individualist I reject your baseless claim.

Again, whats the point of being able to do what you want, if it only leads to bad ends?

Thats the point, it doesn't ONLY lead to bad ends. In fact it RARELY leads to bad ends. Freedom is exactly the capacity to do bad things, and just as those who do them should be held accountable, there should be no prior restraint.

My general point is that god is not really a traditional god as defined by christianity, judaism, w/e. God is a being that creates a certain styleof life; as such, being in the presence of life, or gods direct creations, makes people happy. There is no 'religious', traditional 'religious', aspect to it.

What?!?!, that entire statement is religious.

You're not taking into account those who have no religion, believe in no god, and would rather make their own decisions on how best to pursue happiness.

By the way, claims like "God creates styles of life" is ridiculous, people do. As long as you're alive you're going to be in the presence of life. Not everyone believes in creationism.

Pride in the nation. Not being bitterly divided over whether we are an imperial power, or sent from heaven to help free the world from tyranny. So many people today, for a good reason, think that we are an empire; that we torture, that we hold 'enemy combatants', that we suspend habeas corpus, that our government only looks after the rich and not the poor, and many other things.

These are things we should be divided over. Such actions should be questioned and resolved. Too much pride in a nation can be a bad thing when its doing harm.

Tell me, is allegience based on fear, the same thing as allegience based on pride?

No, how is this relevant and are you trying to establish a dichotomy or explain a false one?

There is no 'my god' to you, or 'your god' to me. Each person has a different god.

The latter statement contradicts the former.

With each community beoming smaller and smaller, yes people still can find happiness, but only within their very small community.

You're wrong in thinking communities are the ideal source of happiness.

Its well documented that as the government engages more in the lives of citizens, voluntary communities will engage less.

Hey, I'm a libertarian, if you want to preach unintrustive government I'm with ya, however this "communism" argument I am not about.

Eventually, there will come a point for everyone that is involved in greater america,or 'market america', will no longer really have separate communities, but one big community centered around the government.

Government is not the center of people's lives, not do Americans intend for it to be. You're quite right to be concerned with growing government, but not for the reasons you profess.

So on that logic, I said that an increasing centralized government will not being increasing happiness, but decreasing.

You're premise is right.

Implicit in what I said is that if people go out an consciensly form communities, they be happier, but less and less people are doing that.

Your argument is wrong. Not all people would be necessarily happier in said communities. A single contradiction disproves the rule.

Never did I once say that we should legislate a community that someone can belong to.

Yes, but you did speak out against the freedom to do otherwise.

I did, however, say that we should make it so that our community upholds the standards of making life.

And how SHOULD one make it so without legislation?

Don't confuse my stance with 'pro life'.

Who said anything about pro-life. I'm accusing you of being anti-liberty.

You should look at a particular legislative act; and ask not the question of whether it would provide results, or whether it is useful; but ask the question, does this legislative act increase peoples abilities to be happy, and increase peoples abilities to engage in the pursuit of happiness?

Anyone who promotes legislation without addressing its effectiveness or usefulness should not be in government. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to happiness. I don't think you have a clear understanding of the purpose of government.

Does this legislative act provide results, at the cost of cutting off the individual from the community around him or her?

This country was founded on individualist principals. The rights of the individual take priority over the comfort of the majority. Besides, what legislature cuts people off from his/her community? This sounds like a false dilemma to me.

You have this notion that we should all be free to do what we want to do. Yeswe should, but we should always try to promote life, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty, taken to an extreme, is bad.

All good stuff except for that last part. Do you realize you're talking to a libertarian?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

i guess i forgot to add this;
centralizing government comes with increasing individual liberty and individual freedom, but decreasing ability to associate with other people how you want to.

Actually, its the opposite. I think you need to do a little research on the whole Federal vs State's rights issue.

But assuming you were right, how could more freedom limit your ability to associate with people the way you would like. That sounds to be the contrary.

de-centralizing government comes with decreasing individual liberty and individual freedom, but increasing ability to assoicate with other people how you want to.

Actually it increases liberty and freedom, thus the ability to do what you want with who you want. I think you may need to look into the dichotomy between positive and negative liberties.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Your logic doesn't follow, how can stupid teachings provide us with an undeniably good community. And why are communities what we should strive for? As an individualist I reject your baseless claim.

communities are good because they are a society connected by humans,with human to human contact, rather than a society of humans connected by distant forms of communication. Humans should interact with humans, and not through another medium.

Thats the point, it doesn't ONLY lead to bad ends. In fact it RARELY leads to bad ends. Freedom is exactly the capacity to do bad things, and just as those who do them should be held accountable, there should be no prior restraint.

Infinite freedom means that people are free to do whatever they want; free to associate with whoever they want, yes, but the general direction of society is that people are free to be individuals. Are kids best brought up by individuals or in a home with parents? Are kids best brought up knowing that they are going to be alone all their life?

What?!?!, that entire statement is religious.

You're not taking into account those who have no religion, believe in no god, and would rather make their own decisions on how best to pursue happiness.

By the way, claims like "God creates styles of life" is ridiculous, people do. As long as you're alive you're going to be in the presence of life. Not everyone believes in creationism.

EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD, just not traditional god. If you don't believe in traditional god, then you still believe in some sort of anti god. By my definition, the anti-god, instead of being some sort of trans-person style of life, is some individual style of life, defined by the individual, rather than general economic circumstances.

Black people in the ghetto - their god is the struggle against the white supremacy.
Individuals - their god is the individual.
America - our god is the theory of the enlightenment.
etc...

Socio-economic conditions create a society for people to live in. People respond to those socio-economic conditions a certain way. Increasing amounts of different socio-economic conditions means there are increasing amounts of how people can respond, etc. I'm referring to those conditions as 'god'.

These are things we should be divided over. Such actions should be questioned and resolved. Too much pride in a nation can be a bad thing when its doing harm.

The point is not that too much pride in a nation is a bad thing, the point is that our government, by centralizing power consistently, has gotten away from the general teachings of the founders, and gone more towards a government centered state. IS this a good thing?

No, how is this relevant and are you trying to establish a dichotomy or explain a false one?

Allegience based on wanting to ally, or alliegence based on forced to ally.

The latter statement contradicts the former.

How?

You're premise is right.

no understand

Your argument is wrong. Not all people would be necessarily happier in said communities. A single contradiction disproves the rule.

talking about generalities here, not absolutes

Yes, but you did speak out against the freedom to do otherwise.

People should have the freedom to be able to, but should not take up that freedom for the reasons I have mentioned.

And how SHOULD one make it so without legislation?

Convince em, I guess. Similar to missionary you are probably gonna say, but you should convince em cause its in their best interest, not because god will hate you.

Who said anything about pro-life. I'm accusing you of being anti-liberty.

LoL well then.

Anyone who promotes legislation without addressing its effectiveness or usefulness should not be in government. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to happiness. I don't think you have a clear understanding of the purpose of government.

I do. Government is to serve the people, and the people should strive to be happy, however they define 'happiness.' It should be worried about efficiency,of course, but only to the extent that it can effectively serve the happiness of the people, and not just the interests.

This country was founded on individualist principals. The rights of the individual take priority over the comfort of the majority. Besides, what legislature cuts people off from his/her community? This sounds like a false dilemma to me.

This country was founded on the prospect that people should be allowed to worship god and live without fear from the government, and that the people should be allowed to govern themselves; tell me, where are the individualistic principles?

Actually, its the opposite. I think you need to do a little research on the whole Federal vs State's rights issue.

But assuming you were right, how could more freedom limit your ability to associate with people the way you would like. That sounds to be the contrary.

1) Hows it the opposite
2) People have the ability to, but if its always about the individuals responsibility to do something, then most of the time the individual is going to spend thinking by themselves how to achieve that something. More individual rights = more time spent thinking about something. Thats how my logic flows.

Actually it increases liberty and freedom, thus the ability to do what you want with who you want. I think you may need to look into the dichotomy between positive and negative liberties.

The federal government was largely pushed through because people felt that if the state governments were left alone, they would become tyranical through various means; as such, the federal government was designed to protect individual rights better than state governments.

 

[thenextbesthang]

i don't think i accurately conveyed my theory of god;

god are the conditions that we exist in as humans. If we insulate ourselves by virture of technology, we become less and less human, but more and more citizen john. God tells us to associate with other humans, not technology; because, humans make humanity, not computers.

God, is essentially, what keeps people together. A common 'ideaology', persay; different gods, keep different people together, necessarily.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

communities are good because they are a society connected by humans,with human to human contact, rather than a society of humans connected by distant forms of communication. Humans should interact with humans, and not through another medium.

That is your opinion, you have not addressed the issue of those who reject your opinion and would rather live as they see fit.

Are kids best brought up by individuals or in a home with parents? Are kids best brought up knowing that they are going to be alone all their life?

These are not questions with concrete answers, there are studies on the matter however.

EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD, just not traditional god. If you don't believe in traditional god, then you still believe in some sort of anti god. By my definition, the anti-god, instead of being some sort of trans-person style of life, is some individual style of life, defined by the individual, rather than general economic circumstances.

Thats word substitution at best. By redefining god as anything, you have made the word meaningless.

I do not believe in god, and I call things what they are. Why does everyone have to have a god to you? You sound like the types that get angry and claim "Everyone has to have a religion" when I claim that I do not. Then you redefine my daily routine as my religion for the same reasons. Why?

The point is not that too much pride in a nation is a bad thing

Actually that was my point.

the point is that our government, by centralizing power consistently, has gotten away from the general teachings of the founders, and gone more towards a government centered state. IS this a good thing?

No, and we have no disagreement on this as I have said. So why bring it up?

Allegience based on wanting to ally, or alliegence based on forced to ally.

Read what you said, then read what I said, then ask yourself if this is a valid reply or if it addresses my question.

How?

(Earlier you said)There is no 'my god' to you, or 'your god' to me. Each person has a different god.

If each person has a different god, then you do have a different god to me, and I do have a different god to you. Understand?

no understand (I was saying that I agree with that part)

talking about generalities here, not absolutes

Well as long as these generalities aren't absolutes, then they do not apply to all people as thus are not worthy of legislation.

Convince em, I guess. Similar to missionary you are probably gonna say, but you should convince em cause its in their best interest, not because god will hate you.

Good luck with that then... You'll need it.

LoL well then.

You're not even going to deny it? Wow... even a fascist wont admit the nature of his beliefs.

I do. Government is to serve the people, and the people should strive to be happy, however they define 'happiness.' It should be worried about efficiency,of course, but only to the extent that it can effectively serve the happiness of the people, and not just the interests.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If I understand you, people should cease to strive for personal happiness when that happiness is in conflict with the overall happiness of the people? If this isn't your argument please clarify what you meant.

tell me, where are the individualistic principles?

Has it been so long since you've read the constitution that you forgot all about individual rights, due process, and all the other safeguards to opression?

Are you unfamiliar with the notion of the tyranny of the majority?

1) Hows it the opposite

Are you familiar with the 10th amendment?

2) People have the ability to, but if its always about the individuals responsibility to do something, then most of the time the individual is going to spend thinking by themselves how to achieve that something. More individual rights = more time spent thinking about something. Thats how my logic flows.

That wasn't a flow. How does this tripe address my 2nd statement?

The federal government was largely pushed through because people felt that if the state governments were left alone, they would become tyranical through various means; as such, the federal government was designed to protect individual rights better than state governments.

Pushed through? It was established by the constitution from the beginning but nice try though.

i don't think i accurately conveyed my theory of god;

god are the conditions that we exist in as humans. If we insulate ourselves by virture of technology, we become less and less human, but more and more citizen john. God tells us to associate with other humans, not technology; because, humans make humanity, not computers.

God, is essentially, what keeps people together. A common 'ideaology', persay; different gods, keep different people together, necessarily.

No, you still havent conveyed your theory. How can god tell us anything if god is merely the conditions in which that we exist. Where did you receive such a command from a god by that standard?

Technology is only a means, and its benefits outweigh whatever social harm you presume it does.

 

[jennyb]

uh.:shock: ...lets look at your NEXT best thing.

 

[thenextbesthang]

That is your opinion, you have not addressed the issue of those who reject your opinion and would rather live as they see fit.
--Of course this is the truth, but this is where our basic disagreement stems from; to say that people have the freedom to live as they see fit is for people to reject whatever community they are currently in.
---
These are not questions with concrete answers, there are studies on the matter however.
--
How were you raised?
---
Thats word substitution at best. By redefining god as anything, you have made the word meaningless.
--
I have not defined god as anything, you mis-interpret again. God is a style of life. Key to that is life; if a lifestyle does not promote life, then there cannot be a god for that person.
--
I do not believe in god, and I call things what they are. Why does everyone have to have a god to you? You sound like the types that get angry and claim "Everyone has to have a religion" when I claim that I do not. Then you redefine my daily routine as my religion for the same reasons. Why?
--
Religion is not about routine, its about mindset and identity. If your lifestyle promotes life, you have a god; if it doesn't, you don't.
--
Actually that was my point.
--
Obviously too much of anything is bad; but you responded to something that was not my point
---
No, and we have no disagreement on this as I have said. So why bring it up?
--
I say that because centralized government is founded on order, stability, efficiency. You can see the connection...
--
Read what you said, then read what I said, then ask yourself if this is a valid reply or if it addresses my question.
--
government should be there because we want it to be thre, because it provides some active benefits, beyond merely security
--
If each person has a different god, then you do have a different god to me, and I do have a different god to you. Understand?
--
Yes. I never argued people should be forced. But, we can find a similarity; find a similar god in a government, or leviathan. Uphold our common community, rather than our common individuality. I'm not attacking liberty and freedom; i'm attacking liberty and freedom when it negates community.
--
Well as long as these generalities aren't absolutes, then they do not apply to all people as thus are not worthy of legislation.
--
Show me one case where a true community, and a person who felt like they belonged in that community, was not a good thing, then i'll possibly accept your argument
--
You're not even going to deny it? Wow... even a fascist wont admit the nature of his beliefs.
--
Just cause you accuse me doesn't mean its right. I just laughed at the blunt way you said it.
--
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If I understand you, people should cease to strive for personal happiness when that happiness is in conflict with the overall happiness of the people? If this isn't your argument please clarify what you meant.
--
What i'm saying is that each individual person has inalienable rights; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Government should never take away life, because without life, you cannot live. Government should never take away liberty, because without liberty you cannot pursue happiness. Government should never take away the ability to pursue happiness, because without that pursuit, life is meaningless. Sort of circular logic here. So what i'm saying is that ifyou break off that pursuit of happiness, and start using pursuit of happiness to go for something else thats not life, its wrong.
---
Has it been so long since you've read the constitution that you forgot all about individual rights, due process, and all the other safeguards to opression?
--
Are they individual rights, or checks upon the governments ppower? I know the consitutition fairly well, at least the more famous portions of it; i can't claim to know the whole thing memorized. They say "government shall not infringe on freedom of speech, freedom to own a gun, establishment of religion; shall not suspend habeas corpus, etc. Its the government giving the rights to the people, not the people giving the rights to themselves. Of course theoretically, the people give the government to themselvse,but when that stops happening, you aren't really free anymore,eh?
Are you unfamiliar with the notion of the tyranny of the majority?
--
Are you familiar with the 10th amendment?
--
The 10th amendment will be dead soon. It started with the creation of a national bank. You can't deny that A) its just a paper barrier, B) the general direction society has been heading in is that more power to the feds
--
That wasn't a flow. How does this tripe address my 2nd statement?
--
But assuming you were right, how could more freedom limit your ability to associate with people the way you would like. That sounds to be the contrary.---
It doesn't limit through oppression, it limits through liberty. It says you are free to do whatever you want; free to associate, free to speak, free to do this, free to do that. However, it also says, because you are free to do XYZ, staying in one community because less attractive, because it limits your freedom. Read up on Tocqueville if you want better reasoning.

--
Pushed through? It was established by the constitution from the beginning but nice try though.
--
The federal government today was established by the constitution. This was a refereance to articles of confederation VS constitution, or ratification debates.
--
No, you still havent conveyed your theory. How can god tell us anything if god is merely the conditions in which that we exist. Where did you receive such a command from a god by that standard?
--
Well, its conveyed to us by gods prophets; for the god of white supremacists, its probably the segregation leaders; god of hip hop, its probably rappers; god of christianity, jesus; god of islam, muhhamed; god of judaism, moses; god of reason and logic, scientists. Again, not 100% sure on these, but thats what I'm thinkin it is right now. I never recieved anything from god; I merely take a look at my position in life, and see how I can best promote life.
--
Technology is only a means, and its benefits outweigh whatever social harm you presume it does.
--
Really depends on what you define as a benefit; it makes our lives easier, and longer, but does it make our lives better, and can you answer any of those questions absolutely?

Like I said; i'm not looking to promote any one type of community, like promoting christianity over judaism, or religion over secularism; I am trying to get people to think abuot promoting life, with a community of people who try to promote life.
Mind you, INDIVIDUALISM IS ONE STYLE OF LIVING. It doesn't not mean that it promotes life.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Are you unfamiliar with the notion of the tyranny of the majority?

I missed this point of yours;
If the legislature is adequately constructed so that it respects life, liberty, property; then what does it matter? The hard part is how do you do this, and how do you define what 'life' is. But I have digressed; supposedly, the legislature is supposed to represent the general will of the people. The general will of the people have to be constructed in such a way that respects the life of people. Essentially, people have to respect the way that life is; abolitionists didn't respect slave owners rights, so boom - civil war. Liberals don't respect social conservative rights, the right to live in a man-woman marriage society, so boom; culture war. I only point out that if the theory of individual rights is taken too far, communities, centered around styles of rights (religion, music, etc), will eventually die out; and that the result will be a world where people are utterly disconnected from everything except their family and closest friends, if the concept of family will even surive until the next century!!

 

[rathi]

abolitionists didn't respect slave owners rights

...I think it would be more reasonable to say that slave owners didn't respect slaves rights.

Liberals don't respect social conservative rights, the right to live in a man-woman marriage society, so boom; culture war

And social conservatives don't respect gays rights to get married either. However, that debate is not really the issue at hand, so I will let it slide.

I only point out that if the theory of individual rights is taken too far, communities, centered around styles of rights (religion, music, etc), will eventually die out; and that the result will be a world where people are utterly disconnected from everything except their family and closest friends, if the concept of family will even surive until the next century!!

What evidence do you have to support such a claim? We will always interact with other people through work or school. Even without such most people will still go to parties, bars, clubs etc. Giving people individual rights will not hinder this process.

god are the conditions that we exist in as humans. If we insulate ourselves by virture of technology, we become less and less human, but more and more citizen john. God tells us to associate with other humans, not technology; because, humans make humanity, not computers.

I'm not saying that the internet is the same of face to face communication, but technology lets people reach out more than ever. I can talk to some random dude about advanced biotechnology beyond what I could ever do in my physical environment. I can also discuss stuff with a guy like you.:roll:

God, is essentially, what keeps people together. A common 'ideaology', persay; different gods, keep different people together, necessarily.

No, most people are "kept together" by evolutionary instinct to form groups as well as things like common interests or mutual gain. I play sports with people who share a common interest in soccer. I work with people because it gets us both material wealth.

Like I said; i'm not looking to promote any one type of community, like promoting christianity over judaism, or religion over secularism; I am trying to get people to think abuot promoting life, with a community of people who try to promote life.

Please define what "promoting life" is.

 

[thenextbesthang]

...I think it would be more reasonable to say that slave owners didn't respect slaves rights.

The point is that prior to the civil war, slaves didn'thave right; slave owners had a legitimate constitutional claim to the ability to own slaves. The constitution was a compact between the fed and the states, the north and the south; only when people said 'no slaves', was their an issue of tyranny by the fed. What did Booth say when he shot lincoln? Wasn't it like, "And thus lived the tyrant!"?

And social conservatives don't respect gays rights to get married either. However, that debate is not really the issue at hand, so I will let it slide.

Once again, its about the compact people make with the government; man-woman relationships, religious relationships persay, have such a compact; gay relationships odn't, by and large,or at least equally.

What evidence do you have to support such a claim? We will always interact with other people through work or school. Even without such most people will still go to parties, bars, clubs etc. Giving people individual rights will not hinder this process.

Never said relationships were going to disapeer. I said voluntary associations. By voluntary associations, I mean associations like: red cross, march of dimes, American leigion, masons, AFL-CIO, the family. Why is there an increasing amount of kids being raised in single parents homes? We will never stop interacting with people; but will we stop actually associating with em? I say, if indiv rights are too much, then yes.

I'm not saying that the internet is the same of face to face communication, but technology lets people reach out more than ever. I can talk to some random dude about advanced biotechnology beyond what I could ever do in my physical environment. I can also discuss stuff with a guy like you.

Theres always a plus to technology; efficiency and broader horrizons. However, me talking to you right now, I can only assume that you are human. You might be klingon. It takes away the human aspect.

No, most people are "kept together" by evolutionary instinct to form groups as well as things like common interests or mutual gain. I play sports with people who share a common interest in soccer. I work with people because it gets us both material wealth.

Evolutionary instinct to form groups? Whered this idea come from? And how do you account for the concept of god, or common homeland, or people rallying around any symbol whatsoever?

Please define what "promoting life" is.

I've been thinkin about this. Honestly, I can't give you a complete answer, but i'll try.
--
The only truth that I have in the realm of politics is that people are people, and when people interact with other people, thats a good thing. Its a good thing because people should interact with other people, due to the fact that we are all people.
We start there. Discard any notion about efficiency, or pressing need, or want or desire. People should interact with people, and it should be people who control the show, not anything else.

So it comes down to this; how do you draw the line to where expanded rights include life, but stop where expanded rights don't include life?

You ultimately have to look at a policy and see its effects. Does this policy isolate people further? Does this policy destroy some communities? Does this policy have any unintended side-effects, which will hasten the downfall of a partiuclar community?

For instance, lets take the debate on abortion; its essentially the rights of the mother, versus the rights of the unborn fetus:
A few ways you could look at it, that would be legitimate in my eyes:
A) If the mother does not want the baby, the baby will be brought into life without love; therefore, since love is essential to life, the mother should have an abortion (assuming no social service exists).
B) The mother is the sole decider of whether or not she gets an abortion; because that isolates her from her partner, her parents, and everyone else, she should not be allowed to get that abortion.
C) Abortion is the killing of an unborn baby - just as god told us that we shall not kill, you shall not get an abortion.

Lets take the debate on gay marriage:
A) Two rational people deserve to get married, regardless of sex.
B) Gay is innate, so people who are gay cannot help themselves, and because people deserve to get married, so do they.
C) Gay is a lifestyle choice, its not innate in nature; because of this 'choice', its not innate, so they don't deserve equal rights.
D) Good gay parents cannot raise children as effectively as good straight parents, so gay's should not be married.

Lets take the debate on military commision act/ war on terror:
A) Security against terrorism is a concern, so we need to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism.
B) Civil liberties are the hallmark of being an American, thus they should not be infringed.
C) Government is not the solution, its the problem
D) The war on terror is designed to transform the american person.

Essentially, what you have here, are many different viewpoints; the point i'm trying to make is that a viewpoint should be adopted only if it promotes life, not another political ideal:
a few are:
security, equality, stability, centralized government.

Life is more important than any of those. The ability of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is more important than any other group of political philosophies.

 

[rathi]

The point is that prior to the civil war, slaves didn'thave right; slave owners had a legitimate constitutional claim to the ability to own slaves.

So you are a racist who believes that enslaving people is okay, and that the constitution doesn't apply to people with dark skin.

Once again, its about the compact people make with the government; man-woman relationships, religious relationships persay, have such a compact; gay relationships odn't, by and large,or at least equally.

No they are LEGAL relationships traditionally associated with religion.

Never said relationships were going to disapeer. I said voluntary associations. By voluntary associations, I mean associations like: red cross, march of dimes, American leigion, masons, AFL-CIO, the family. Why is there an increasing amount of kids being raised in single parents homes?

You claim that these events are caused by having individual rights, please provide proof.

You might be klingon. It takes away the human aspect.

What are you talking about, the only species that can communicate on the internet are humans. And for the internet, it is not a substitute for real life communication, but it is a good suplement.

Evolutionary instinct to form groups? Whered this idea come from? And how do you account for the concept of god, or common homeland, or people rallying around any symbol whatsoever?

Human beings form social groups as a survival and reproductive strategy, much the same way that wolves do. God was created as a means of explaining things, common homeland arose from communities based around farming and people rally around symbols because they don't have the ability to get the entire picture, so they find something simply like a symbol.

security, equality, stability, centralized government.

Life is more important than any of those. The ability of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is more important than any other group of political philosophies.

But pursuing happiness, life or liberty is very difficult without security, stability, equality and sometimes centralized government.

 

[thenextbesthang]

So you are a racist who believes that enslaving people is okay, and that the constitution doesn't apply to people with dark skin.

The point i'm trying to make is not that people back then were racists. Undoubtably they were. But it was in the prerogative of the system to allow them to be racists. Once we start saying 'thou shall not be racist', you set the precedent for the government manipulation of people, or the destruction of identities.
I'm NOT arguing to return to a slave system. I'm saying that people have a right to do what they want to do, and act how they want to act; and for all people who are equally considered 'people', they deserve equal rights - if you are not equal, you don't.

No they are LEGAL relationships traditionally associated with religion.

Who establishes this 'legal relationship'. The government, or a governing authority. Marriage may be given out by a minister, but it is certainly perpetuated by tax breaks from the government.

You claim that these events are caused by having individual rights, please provide proof.

No proof, only reasoning.

What are you talking about, the only species that can communicate on the internet are humans. And for the internet, it is not a substitute for real life communication, but it is a good suplement.

That logic is not addressing my point. I can't see you, I can't touch you. To me, you are just a box with words on the internet.

Human beings form social groups as a survival and reproductive strategy, much the same way that wolves do. God was created as a means of explaining things, common homeland arose from communities based around farming and people rally around symbols because they don't have the ability to get the entire picture, so they find something simply like a symbol.

Do people have a right to a homeland, or a right to an identity, or a right to a set of belief? Let's say hypothetically that I believed in one thing, lets say....christianity. I live in Lebanon around 1950, when muslims are coming to power. So now they are coming to pwoer, i have two choices;
A) Fight their takeover.
B) Don't fight their takeover, and live my life in isolation.

If I do A, then I am fighting people based on ideaology, which is the same damn thing as say, enslaving people. If I do B, there is nothing saying that I will be guaranteed protection in a number of years (what happens if the muslims, after they took power, decided to kill all christians anyway, or force em to convert?) Do I have the right to fight people? In the civil war era, the north wanted to erradiacate the southern slave owner; did the southern slave owner have a right to defend themselves? If you say no, then what are you saying about your views on the right to self defense in general?

But I have digressed, sort of. If you think that the government should end these separate groups, or that these groups should not exist because of some abstract principle, then in a sense you are saying that these groups should not defend themselves, and if they are defending themselves, they are somehow a great moral stain upon society. That is why people are kept together by common ideaology, and circumstances; and people who have a common ideaology and circumstances, tend to have the same god.

But pursuing happiness, life or liberty is very difficult without security, stability, equality and sometimes centralized government.

Never said that it wasn't, but the focus of your actions should not be promoting stability, equality, or centralized government; it should be to promote life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Whenever any government becomes destructive to those ends for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, the people have a fundamental right to alter its construction or to abolish it into eternity. Thats what's wrong; people feel that equality, stability are necessary in of themselves, and that they are a good thing that there is absolutely no conflict or bloodshed among the citizens; I SAY NO.

 

[rathi]

The point i'm trying to make is not that people back then were racists. Undoubtably they were. But it was in the prerogative of the system to allow them to be racists. Once we start saying 'thou shall not be racist', you set the precedent for the government manipulation of people, or the destruction of identities.

Hmmm. The government bans racial discrimination, and allow racism is just a thought and thoughts are not controlled. And I find that thinking that allowing slavery was okay, just because white people had power, to be somewhat lacking. I don't like using a moral arguments, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Who establishes this 'legal relationship'. The government, or a governing authority. Marriage may be given out by a minister, but it is certainly perpetuated by tax breaks from the government.

You don't need a minister to get married, so its not inherently religious.

No proof, only reasoning.

Then provide such reasoning. You just claimed there was a link.

In the civil war era, the north wanted to erradiacate the southern slave owner; did the southern slave owner have a right to defend themselves? If you say no, then what are you saying about your views on the right to self defense in general?

You are wrong. The north had no intention of killing or removing slave owners. At best they wanted to free the slave, although even that was not guaranteed. And considering that only a small number of southerns even owned slave, the south was not "under attack." My views on self defense require that you actually be attacked first.

That is why people are kept together by common ideaology, and circumstances; and people who have a common ideaology and circumstances, tend to have the same god.

No people tend to have the same circumstance, ideaology and god because they taught them by their community. And i have not called for the removal of separate groups.

Thats what's wrong; people feel that equality, stability are necessary in of themselves, and that they are a good thing that there is absolutely no conflict or bloodshed among the citizens; I SAY NO.

I agree.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Hmmm. The government bans racial discrimination, and allow racism is just a thought and thoughts are not controlled. And I find that thinking that allowing slavery was okay, just because white people had power, to be somewhat lacking. I don't like using a moral arguments, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Granted. I agree that slavery deserved to be abolished, due to the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, and such a nation cannot truly hope to be called a nation of immigrants unless all the citizens of different colors are equal. But, if you were a racist, and you owned slaves,you would feel that the government was tyranny for saying 'no slaves.' You would think that it was within your right to own slaves. Similar arguments apply today;
ITs in my right to deny same sex couples the right to marry for whatever reason I choose.
ITs in my right to deny abortions for whatever reason I choose.

If you say they are wrong,then you need to cite some high and mighty principle, like EQUALITY.

You don't need a minister to get married, so its not inherently religious.

How was marriage given to us? By virture of religious law, or non-religious law?

Never said relationships were going to disapeer. I said voluntary associations. By voluntary associations, I mean associations like: red cross, march of dimes, American leigion, masons, AFL-CIO, the family. Why is there an increasing amount of kids being raised in single parents homes?

My point may be hard to follow here, i'll do it as best as I can.
---
At some point before the rise of civil society, man was free to do whatever we wanted; however, because we lived in a hobbesian state of nature, where life was nasty, poor, brutish and short, we created this thing called civil society. This concept allowed us to organize people; it allowed for a division of labor, a creation of order, stability.
That's the part I want to focus on, in truth;
At that part, you have two options-
A) Stay in this pre-civil society state, where you are inherently free, but only have yourself to rely on.
B) Join with civil society, where you depend on other people for various parts of your life (you don't really control your life to the fullest extent), but you have the fruits of 'everyone' to rely on.

Practically every conflict is an extension of that. The basic conflict is essentially, do we get rid of the status quo, and whatever we are used to, so that we can create a more fruitful society,one that plays to peoples interest?

By and large, society has chosen, over the long run, B. Think about it; the act of getting food has been reduced to shopping at the supermarket - if people want to have sex, theres contraception so that they don't have to worry about consequences; if people want to listen to music, there is every type of music possible; if there is something that is not existing that people want to do, then they can create it.

What does that say for the state of human society? Essentially, what that is saying is that for whatever people want to do, they have the ability to do it; there tends to be less, and less of a reason for people to do anything in particular. Do people need to live in a family to live? No. Do people need to defend themselves from aggression? Not with the police around. Do people need to have kids? No. Therefore, I am making the statement that as civil society increases in scope, and as it becomes more and more present in our daily lives, the pre-existing sense of 'state of nature' becomes less and less prevalent, so we need to do less and less in order to survive, and we inevitably put more and more trust into society.

How does this effect my theory on increasing individual rights means less actual associations? Meaningful associations come together for a purpose; American Legion,to promote the military - AFL-CIO, to promote the workers; NAACP, to promote 'colored people', and so on and so forth. If this need is thoroughly diminished through the rise of civil society, for the reasons I have shown (because of less of an emphasis on mans 'state of nature'), then people will not have a true need to be joining these institutions anymore. If there is no need, these institutions will not be influential nor will they be effective, thus they are doomed to destruction.

That's 'voluntary associations'. You are never going to get rid of associations, period, but if you remove the associations that bind the large parts of society together, you separate society into many, individual chunks. Thats why I say removing the need for 'voluntary associations' creates a more individual society.

I could go on, but I want to answer your other points now.

You are wrong. The north had no intention of killing or removing slave owners. At best they wanted to free the slave, although even that was not guaranteed. And considering that only a small number of southerns even owned slave, the south was not "under attack." My views on self defense require that you actually be attacked first.

Never said 'kill'. I said erradicate. I never said 'remove'. What I meant was change. Perhaps I used the wrong word. You can't tell me that the north fought the civil war only to free the black people, and not end the slave ideaology present in the south. Two sides of the same coin.

Your views on self defense require you to be attacked first? Take a look at that particular situation:
A) North had the majority in the House.
B) North had the majority in the Supreme Court.
C) North had control of the president
D) The senate was split 50 - 50 betweeen north and south.
E) The north was trying to ban slavery from expanding into the territories, thus increasing its edge over the slave states in the senate.
F) Many northern politicians had proclaimed the evils of slavery, and wanted to abolish it.

The North, in almost every aspect of the government, had the ability to control the south; and it threatend the very livelyhood of the south. You don't think that that constitutes a resonable cause for self-defense? From the souths point of view, what right did the north have to dictate its terms to the south?

No people tend to have the same circumstance, ideaology and god because they taught them by their community. And i have not called for the removal of separate groups.

But how do you prevent people from making up some abstract principle and forcibly removing those separate groups because of it?

I agree.

I forgot to add, pursuit of wealth is something that is given too much emphasis.

 

[rathi]

ITs in my right to deny same sex couples the right to marry for whatever reason I choose.
ITs in my right to deny abortions for whatever reason I choose.
If you say they are wrong,then you need to cite some high and mighty principle, like EQUALITY.

Not really, I support abortion mostly because society benefits from it and because outlawing it doesn't really stop abortions from happening. And I am for gay marriage because I don't like religion trampling over people using our government. I also support equality, but I don't need to cite it to form my arguments.

How was marriage given to us? By virture of religious law, or non-religious law?

Marriage was given to us by a bunch of random pagans. Still doesn't matter, in the U.S. it is still a legal concept that does not require religion.

Thats why I say removing the need for 'voluntary associations' creates a more individual society.

I agree, but how is that a bad thing?

A) North had the majority in the House.
B) North had the majority in the Supreme Court.
C) North had control of the president
D) The senate was split 50 - 50 betweeen north and south.

Lol, republicans have that today, do you think that the democrats should start uprising?

E) The north was trying to ban slavery from expanding into the territories, thus increasing its edge over the slave states in the senate.

No it wasn't, no bill was even introduced. And the north already had the edge over the south, they wouldn't gain anything by screwing the south.

F) Many northern politicians had proclaimed the evils of slavery, and wanted to abolish it.

How was this an attack on southerns? It might hurt the purses of a few rich people, but thats not an attack.

The North, in almost every aspect of the government, had the ability to control the south; and it threatend the very livelyhood of the south. You don't think that that constitutes a resonable cause for self-defense? From the souths point of view, what right did the north have to dictate its terms to the south?

They didn't threaten the lively hood of the south, they threatened the profits of a few rich people.

But how do you prevent people from making up some abstract principle and forcibly removing those separate groups because of it?

Law.

 

[thenextbesthang]

Not really, I support abortion mostly because society benefits from it and because outlawing it doesn't really stop abortions from happening. And I am for gay marriage because I don't like religion trampling over people using our government. I also support equality, but I don't need to cite it to form my arguments.

The first arguments made as to why abortion should be legalized laregly involved this sense that there is a right to privacy.
This sense of a right to privacy is derived from the constitution, not explicitly stated in the constitution.
Therefore, some high and might principle, in this case 'right to privacy', has thoroughly transformed all previous laws, whether it was, on the state level, legalized or illegalized, into one, uniform, legality.

You don't like religion trampling over peoples rights? Well, before I say that such a concept is totally coming from the principle SELF CHOICE, which is by no means apparent in the constitution at the founding, I must ask you this:
A) Do I have the right to live in the society of my choosing?
B) If I want to live in a christian society, or in a religious society, do I have the right to live in that society without threat of it being undermined? Don't give me the argument that I am free to form my own sub-society; i'm saying In our society, in greater America, if I am religious, do I have the right to live in a religious society if I so choose. If you answer no, then explain to me how that is 'morally' better then saying yes;
You'd probably say that people have the right to choose what they want, which is what being in a free society is all about.
Well then I say, do people have the right to steal, or kill, or cheat on their spouses, or beat their kids, or have sex with children, if its 'consensual'?

You have to draw the line somehwere, and different people draw the line differently. No hiding behind absolute principles, only relative.

Marriage was given to us by a bunch of random pagans. Still doesn't matter, in the U.S. it is still a legal concept that does not require religion.

LoL really. So the puritans were a bunch of random pagans? The colonists were a bunch of pagans? Interesting...

I agree, but how is that a bad thing?

Why is it a good thing to be isolated from everyone else? Furthermore, if we are all 'separated', then the government will be consolidated into one giant power, and thus we rebelled against tyranny only to put ourselves back into a tyranny. Then, if the government wants to, it can take away all our freedoms, and theres no realistic way for the people to overthrow such a repressive government because they are too splintered.

Lol, republicans have that today, do you think that the democrats should start uprising?

Not the same. If the republicans were bent on destroying the economy of the democrats, or the dignity of the democrats, then yeah, i'd say those democratic supporters deserves to rebel. However, what makes a republican and a democrat different is miniscule - just how you view life, not any actual, economic, difference (middle class dems vs repubs).

No it wasn't, no bill was even introduced. And the north already had the edge over the south, they wouldn't gain anything by screwing the south

.

Read up on your history. Abe lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He was bitterly opposed to the spread of slavery into the territories. The republican party was created around the slavery issue for cryin out loud; there was a whole lotta peoplein the north who wanted to abolish slavery. They wouldn't gain anything by screwing the south? Are you serious? If they wanted to do anything to the south, the south would be powerless to stop em in the constitutional system, due to the fact that the north was the majority in everything. Tyranny of the majority.

How was this an attack on southerns? It might hurt the purses of a few rich people, but thats not an attack.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? How was the attack on the twin towers an attack on our nation then? All it was, assuming the 9/11 commission story is true, was a bunch of pissed off muslims who destoyed 2 towers in new york city, and 3000 people. Why should people from Kansas care about a terrorist act that no one they knew died?
Why should Americans care about the japaneese bombing pearl harbor? It was just a military base in hawaii; no need to get riled up about it.
Point being, the economy, not just the rich southeners, depended on the black man picking cotton. Then spawned from that, was a white nationalistic ideaology. Then these yankees come here, and insult my very identity? My very person? Do you understand now?

They didn't threaten the lively hood of the south, they threatened the profits of a few rich people.

It threatend pretty much the entire south, or those that were in or didn't actively protest the slave system.

Law.

What principles do you base law on?
If you say you should base em on principles that uphold freedom, and liberty;
Do people have the right to have sex with children or infants?

If you say you should base em on the principle that if people are rational beings, and thus they should be given the opportunity to do what they want in a 'private sphere';
Does that include the right to have permiscuis sex with many people? If you say yes, what if there are sexually transmitted diseases, that by giving this people such a right,you are inherently hurting others?

If you say that we should promote equality among the people -
Are equal rights really beneficial to society as a whole? Is society better off now that people have the right to have abortions, as much as they want; have the right to divorce people, as much as they want, and many other thing?

 

[rathi]

This sense of a right to privacy is derived from the constitution, not explicitly stated in the constitution.
Therefore, some high and might principle, in this case 'right to privacy', has thoroughly transformed all previous laws, whether it was, on the state level, legalized or illegalized, into one, uniform, legality.

The supreme court has the power to decide what is in the constitution, you don't. The constitution has a right to privacy and they chose to apply it to
abortion. That could change, but for the moment both the right to privacy and abortion exist in the constitution.

Do I have the right to live in the society of my choosing?

No you don't. You can't live crazy violent anarchist society just because you choose to. Of course you can leave the U.S. to find one, but that is not part of our argument.

LoL really. So the puritans were a bunch of random pagans? The colonists were a bunch of pagans? Interesting...

No, but the puritans and colonists got marriage from chistianty, who got marriage from pagans. So ultimately, we got marriage from pagans. You have to go to the root cause, otherwise it would be like claiming that england gave us marriage. And fail to see how it is relevant, as marriage is currently a legal concept.

Why is it a good thing to be isolated from everyone else? Furthermore, if we are all 'separated', then the government will be consolidated into one giant power, and thus we rebelled against tyranny only to put ourselves back into a tyranny. Then, if the government wants to, it can take away all our freedoms, and theres no realistic way for the people to overthrow such a repressive government because they are too splintered.

No joining some club is not the same thing as being isolated. Sure old clubs like the unions or American Legion are dying, but other ones like moveon.org are starting. Sure moveon is just some liberal mouthpiece, but it shows how the internet can organize people. Organizations grow and shrink, and some organizations are shrinking while others are growing.

Not the same. If the republicans were bent on destroying the economy of the democrats, or the dignity of the democrats, then yeah, i'd say those democratic supporters deserves to rebel. However, what makes a republican and a democrat different is miniscule - just how you view life, not any actual, economic, difference (middle class dems vs repubs).

The northerns were not bent on destroying the economy of the south.

The republican party was created around the slavery issue for cryin out loud; there was a whole lotta peoplein the north who wanted to abolish slavery

.
Stopping the spread of is not the same as outright banning. And yes there were many in the north that wanted to ban it, but unless the government passes a law, that is irrelevant.

They wouldn't gain anything by screwing the south? Are you serious

?

What would they gain by screwing the south?

If they wanted to do anything to the south, the south would be powerless to stop em in the constitutional system, due to the fact that the north was the majority in everything. Tyranny of the majority.

The republicans currently control ever branch of government, yet are they a "tyranny" of the majority? Tyranny requires tyrannical acts, and neither the republicans back then or now currently act badly enough to warrant violence.

Point being, the economy, not just the rich southeners, depended on the black man picking cotton.

Not really. The majority of the south were poor farmers. Only a few people owned slaves, and only their profits would have really been hurt.

Then spawned from that, was a white nationalistic ideaology. Then these yankees come here, and insult my very identity? My very person? Do you understand now?

Do you think that the slaves might have been "insulted" by being treated like animals? Defending slavery on moral grounds is rather pathetic.

It threatend pretty much the entire south, or those that were in or didn't actively protest the slave system.

The overwhelming majority of southerners didn't own slaves, therefore most of the south was not threatened.

If you say you should base em on the principle that if people are rational beings, and thus they should be given the opportunity to do what they want in a 'private sphere';
Does that include the right to have permiscuis sex with many people? If you say yes, what if there are sexually transmitted diseases, that by giving this people such a right,you are inherently hurting others?

Thats why you teach them contraceptive use and promote std testing. Banning sex doesn't stop it, so the practical course is to allow it and teach people to be safe.

What principles do you base law on?
If you say you should base em on principles that uphold freedom, and liberty;
Do people have the right to have sex with children or infants?

The idea behind law is that they are common rules that the people are willing to follow in order to gain the protections of the law.

If you say that we should promote equality among the people -
Are equal rights really beneficial to society as a whole? Is society better off now that people have the right to have abortions, as much as they want; have the right to divorce people, as much as they want, and many other thing?

Of course I do. Otherwise I would be living in a totalitarian state where the government thinks that equality or freedom are bad.

 

[thenextbesthang]

The supreme court has the power to decide what is in the constitution, you don't. The constitution has a right to privacy and they chose to apply it to
abortion. That could change, but for the moment both the right to privacy and abortion exist in the constitution.

The supreme court is made up of people. Therefore, it is people, granted who have a far superior schooling in terms of law and a far greater respect for preendent than the average person, who are determining what is in the constitution. I don't see anywhere in the constitution that there is such a thing as 'the government shall not infringe on the right to privacy.' I see 'government shall not remove habeas corpus, shall need a warant to search, shall not impose excessive fines, etc." Privacy is implied, not directly stated, therefore such 'judicial activism' will always cause dissent, and feel that the supreme court is unjust.

No you don't. You can't live crazy violent anarchist society just because you choose to. Of course you can leave the U.S. to find one, but that is not part of our argument.

How then, is your argument any different, that the government shall not impose a way of life, than the other argument, that the government should work to impose a certain style of life? An essential part of religion, or a socially ordered society, is that there is such a thing as order! By saying that we do not have the right to live in a society of our choice, you are limiting what our options in government can be; without all the options on the table, there is no chance for real order in society. So you've gone from fighting the tyranny of social orderness,where people have a structued place in life, to tyrannizing social orderness, where people have no right to live in a structured society.

No, but the puritans and colonists got marriage from chistianty, who got marriage from pagans. So ultimately, we got marriage from pagans. You have to go to the root cause, otherwise it would be like claiming that england gave us marriage. And fail to see how it is relevant, as marriage is currently a legal concept.

EXACTLY. Christianity gave us marriage. Not paganism. SAying that we got marriage from pagans because pagans gave christianity marriage is like saying that we got farming from the babylonians, or that we got hunting from the first african men, or that we got the ability to think from monkeys, or that we learned to build cities from the catal huyukians. If you look at history, maybe that's where it started; but i doubt anyone who gets hunts is going to say 'thank you africans, for giving us the fruit of the hunt.'
Marriage is not just a legal concept. MAybe to you it is. Not to many people.

No joining some club is not the same thing as being isolated. Sure old clubs like the unions or American Legion are dying, but other ones like moveon.org are starting. Sure moveon is just some liberal mouthpiece, but it shows how the internet can organize people. Organizations grow and shrink, and some organizations are shrinking while others are growing.

Not The Same Thing.
a) These old clubs, they were primarily based around person to person contact; they had elections, representation, leaders; in short, these old clubs were a school for democracy - and because they required a decent amount of time, generally they attracted a following where people were more attentative to their cause. Moveon.org, while many people may believe in liberal ideals that it proposes, doesn't have such a thing - it, at its base, is a collection of people connected by email or the internet; societies by the internet are inherently weaker, because their is a minimal person to person contact, so less community.
b) The numbers of organizations that can effectively mobilize people are shrinking in number, if not necessarily in size. As such, it becomes far more easy to corrupt a few organzations to bend to the rule of tyrants, than many organzations.

The northerns were not bent on destroying the economy of the south.

They were bent on destroying the moral evils of slavery, and slavery is directly what a large part of the economy of the south depended on at the time. If it wasn't, i guarantee you there would not have been a civil war.

Stopping the spread of is not the same as outright banning. And yes there were many in the north that wanted to ban it, but unless the government passes a law, that is irrelevant.

What the north was trying to do was guarantee a constitutional majority for itself. Once that was assured, slavery would have been constitutionally abolished. The reason why there was no 'law' banning slavery was that the north did not have a majority in the senate, which would have vetoed any law that banned slavery! Want proof of that? Slavery, in the original constitution, was not banned, because the south would not have supported the constitution if it was; slavery was removed from the declaration of independence, at the behest of the southern delegates. And so on.

What would they gain by screwing the south?

A sense of moral achievement, saying that they vanquished the evils of slavery. Why do liberals feel good when rulings against ordered societies, or religious societies, are good? What would THEY gain, by saying that people in Kansas can now marry the same sex, or ahve abortions - if they never even knew these people?

The republicans currently control ever branch of government, yet are they a "tyranny" of the majority? Tyranny requires tyrannical acts, and neither the republicans back then or now currently act badly enough to warrant violence.

you misinterpreted me. A majority in the government does not equal tyranny of the majority. However, it does equal this; if the majority decided to be a tyranny, it could, because there are no checks and balances. What you're saying is essentially, the reoublicans aren't a tyranny even though they are a majority; however, A) Is the 'republican' ideaology really a majority, B) Can they legitimately be a tyranny? I'd disagree with you in the aspect that they are a tyranny; some places they are, some places they aren't. My point was, that in the pre-civil war era, the north wanted to remove the institution of slavery from America, because it was 'morally wrong'. With a clear majority, and a unified message, and a unified opposition, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE DEFINITION OF TYRANNY.

Not really. The majority of the south were poor farmers. Only a few people owned slaves, and only their profits would have really been hurt.

Prior to the civil war, i've seen estminates that place the amount of slaves in the southern possesion around four million, and about 1/3 - 1/2 of the south families owned slaves. While the majority may not have owned slaves, how many people do you think benefitted from it in the south; the tailors, the manufacturers, the shopkeepers, and any other places that dealt with 'cotton'.

Do you think that the slaves might have been "insulted" by being treated like animals? Defending slavery on moral grounds is rather pathetic.

Thats looking at it from post-civil war mindset. Look at it from pre-civil war mindset of a white southener. The civil war was fought between white northeners who wanted to preserve the union and end slavery, and white southeners who wanted to secede from the union and continue with slavery. While there were free black soliders in the north, the white people were the ones that were behind the political conflict.

Thats why you teach them contraceptive use and promote std testing. Banning sex doesn't stop it, so the practical course is to allow it and teach people to be safe.

When I refer to 'government', i don't mean just the body of people that makes l;aws. I also mean the societal mores that dictate the way that people act. Usually they are established by law, but the message is not from it, persay.

So what you are saying is...that people who have aids have the right to have as much sex as they want, but that you should try to change their thoughts through education??? Hmm...doesn't that sound a lot like the argument for a religious society? (People have the right to live as they want, but we should promote a religious society because its in the best interest of people...) Are you denying people who have aids their right to have sex?

The idea behind law is that they are common rules that the people are willing to follow in order to gain the protections of the law.

So the law is there for people to follow it. OK, ill agree with that. Now how should the people act? Should we try to promote a society where we worship the earth? Shuold we try to promote a moral society, a free society, etc.

Of course I do. Otherwise I would be living in a totalitarian state where the government thinks that equality or freedom are bad.

Again...not my point. You can be 'free' without being 'equal'. Its a matter of what you expect. I ask you again; how were you raised. And is a society where everyone is treated equally, where the mothers and fathers work 40 hours a week, where a baby is not fed breast milk, but instead 'baby formula', because the mother didn't want to be any more special than the dad in raising the child, where a child essentially learned how to live in and around school; is that the best type of society? If you say yes to most or all of these questions, we will inherently disagree, and this thread will be finished.

 

[rathi]

Privacy is implied, not directly stated, therefore such 'judicial activism' will always cause dissent, and feel that the supreme court is unjust.

So, whats your point? The railroads thought that the supreme court was unjust when they claimed "interstate commerce clause" mean they could bust up the railroads monopolies.

How then, is your argument any different, that the government shall not impose a way of life, than the other argument, that the government should work to impose a certain style of life?

The same way that that beating someone to death with a shovel is different from NOT beating someone to death with a shovel. They mean the exact opposite thing!

By saying that we do not have the right to live in a society of our choice, you are limiting what our options in government can be; without all the options on the table, there is no chance for real order in society.

You misunderstand me. By voting and working with your peers you can agree to live in what kind of society you want. You personally, do not get that choice.

EXACTLY. Christianity gave us marriage. Not paganism. SAying that we got marriage from pagans because pagans gave christianity marriage is like saying that we got farming from the babylonians, or that we got hunting from the first african men, or that we got the ability to think from monkeys, or that we learned to build cities from the catal huyukians. If you look at history, maybe that's where it started; but i doubt anyone who gets hunts is going to say 'thank you africans, for giving us the fruit of the hunt.'

True, but that doesn't change the reality that they gave it to us. Christianity took marriage from the pagans, and gave it to us. Its still a pagan invention.

Marriage is not just a legal concept. MAybe to you it is. Not to many people.

Of course, but when dealing with government, law is what matters. Therefor from a governmental perspective, marriage is a legal definition. Of course, I admit it would easier if the government just got out of marriage and gave all couples civil unions.

Moveon.org, while many people may believe in liberal ideals that it proposes, doesn't have such a thing - it, at its base, is a collection of people connected by email or the internet; societies by the internet are inherently weaker, because their is a minimal person to person contact, so less community.

I agree that the internet is far less personal.

The numbers of organizations that can effectively mobilize people are shrinking in number, if not necessarily in size. As such, it becomes far more easy to corrupt a few organzations to bend to the rule of tyrants, than many organzations.

Yes what you say is true, but how is that related to individual values?

They were bent on destroying the moral evils of slavery, and slavery is directly what a large part of the economy of the south depended on at the time. If it wasn't, i guarantee you there would not have been a civil war.

The majority of the south consisted of poor farmers. Slavery being would not have effected them in any meaningful economic way. The only people who slaves were rich.

What the north was trying to do was guarantee a constitutional majority for itself.

Just random speculation on your part.

A sense of moral achievement, saying that they vanquished the evils of slavery. Why do liberals feel good when rulings against ordered societies, or religious societies, are good? What would THEY gain, by saying that people in Kansas can now marry the same sex, or ahve abortions - if they never even knew these people?

None of things you described are attacks that justify violence.

My point was, that in the pre-civil war era, the north wanted to remove the institution of slavery from America, because it was 'morally wrong'. With a clear majority, and a unified message, and a unified opposition, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE DEFINITION OF TYRANNY.

So, the organized gangs with a unified message who are arrested because killing people is "morally wrong" are being opressed by "tyrants." Don't you think that the southerners might have been a bit more tyrannical, given that they enslaved people.

Prior to the civil war, i've seen estminates that place the amount of slaves in the southern possesion around four million, and about 1/3 - 1/2 of the south families owned slaves. While the majority may not have owned slaves, how many people do you think benefitted from it in the south; the tailors, the manufacturers, the shopkeepers, and any other places that dealt with 'cotto

n'.


Estimates among southern slave owners is normally about 15%, but most of those were only one slave. Only the very wealthy could afford to a large number. And please tell how having your profits lowered constitutes an "attack" that demands violence. That is just pathetic.

So what you are saying is...that people who have aids have the right to have as much sex as they want, but that you should try to change their thoughts through education??

People who know they have aids, rarely have unprotected sex, and I do not think that people will aids should have unprotected sex. However, having promiscous sex does not involve aids most of the time, so it is normally okay.

Hmm...doesn't that sound a lot like the argument for a religious society? (People have the right to live as they want, but we should promote a religious society because its in the best interest of people...)

Religious societies are not in the best interest of the people. Science which leads to technology is. Almost every single industrialized, secular, society with high technology is a good place to live. Poor religious societies are not. Or do you think that religious South American countries have it better than the U.S.

So the law is there for people to follow it. OK, ill agree with that. Now how should the people act? Should we try to promote a society where we worship the earth? Shuold we try to promote a moral society, a free society, etc.

Thats up to the people who live in the country.

Again...not my point. You can be 'free' without being 'equal'. Its a matter of what you expect. I ask you again; how were you raised. And is a society where everyone is treated equally, where the mothers and fathers work 40 hours a week, where a baby is not fed breast milk, but instead 'baby formula', because the mother didn't want to be any more special than the dad in raising the child, where a child essentially learned how to live in and around school; is that the best type of society

Both parents working is not always optimal for childcare. If one parent can get enough money working full time, the other should help improve the children's lives. Of course, given economic pressures sometimes both parents must work full time to provide a basic lifestyle. Of course, their are other options like where both parents take part time jobs and they can both work and raise kids equally.

where a baby is not fed breast milk, but instead 'baby formula', because the mother didn't want to be any more special than the dad in raising the child,

Formula is just more convenient than breast milk, it has nothing to do with anybody wanting to be more or less special.

where a child essentially learned how to live in and around school

Of course, I hate the fact that parents rely on TV and video game to raise kids. Then they go and blame the school and video games when something goes wrong. Parents need to take more responsibility and stop suing everyone else for their own failure.

 

[thenextbesthang]

So, whats your point? The railroads thought that the supreme court was unjust when they claimed "interstate commerce clause" mean they could bust up the railroads monopolies.

I never said that it was beneficial for government intervention into private property. Monopolies need to be broken up for a competative marketplace to exist. However, that being said, if you are going to break up monopolies, you are weakening such a notion of 'private property', which is a clear centralization away of power, from the land holder, to the government. I never said it wasn't beneficial.

The same way that that beating someone to death with a shovel is different from NOT beating someone to death with a shovel. They mean the exact opposite thing!

No one is arguing about death here. We are arguing about freedoms, and liberty. I'm saying that if people in society want to beat their kids, for whatever reason they choose, they have a right to; telling them no is interfering in their life. The only way you can justify your position is if you say that the rights of the kid are equal to the rights of the parents. And what i'm saying, is that by giving the kid equal rights, you are inherently taking away the rights from the parents; thus, a middling standard is established, and anyone who is capable of 'standing above the crowd' is now cut down by the law, which is not good. IT fosters inferiority among the citizens, and people who are unable to take charge of a situation.

You misunderstand me. By voting and working with your peers you can agree to live in what kind of society you want. You personally, do not get that choice.

So if the majority of the nation wants to live in a theocracy, by christian law, they then have the right to. It doesn't matter if we live in constitutional government - they have the right to live in a christian nation, and they make the choices because they are the majority. Or something along those lines.

True, but that doesn't change the reality that they gave it to us. Christianity took marriage from the pagans, and gave it to us. Its still a pagan invention.

Paganism was still a religion. There was never anything 'secular' abuot marriage, until some liberals thought that marriage is merely some provisions in law.

Of course, but when dealing with government, law is what matters. Therefor from a governmental perspective, marriage is a legal definition. Of course, I admit it would easier if the government just got out of marriage and gave all couples civil unions.

Not just law, but goals, and ends of life matter. The people establish the governments, which in turn establish the law. The law is there for a purpose; to keep order,and to try to give the citizens what they want. Yes,marriage gets defined in legal terms, but why have marriage at all? The people want there to be marriage; and the people want marriage to be a certain way. Government is there to implement those goals.

Yes what you say is true, but how is that related to individual values?

It relates to individual values, because as the citizenry engages less in the public realm, the government engages more. As there is more emphasis on saying 'you have the right to choose how you want to live your life', and 'no one can force you how to live your life', then associations proliferate, but who are in distinct and different associations, sort of aren't really in the same society anymore.
Example:
The society is a free society;

Mr Chris is a heavily religious person. He wants to live in a religious society, by and large by christian law, and with christian people. In turn, he starts associating himself with the church, christian people, and christian teachings,and moves away from non religious teachings, such as evolution, alternative lifestyles - when he gets taught those things,he thinks that they are blasphemy against the word of god.

Mr Ral is a heavily secular person. He wants to live how he chooses to live. So he associates with people, but doesn't really form interpersonal bonds like Mr. Chris does. This is the case, because if he forms lasting bonds with people, it has to be because of some person to person feeling, rather than some person to deity toperson feeling. Sure he has friends, but beyond his friends and family, many people are a stranger to him. When he starts getting taught things like religious values, he scoffs at em, and tells em that they are not supported by the fact, and that you should never mix policy with religion.

If you say that these people share the same society, then inherently you are saying that these people are sort of in Different Societies. If you say that that should not be the case, then you are really a tyrant.

In both cases people assoicate with others; just in one case, its on more ofa spiritual level, rather than a person to person level. If people really only associate on a person to person level, there is still going to be a government that rules over all of us. People spend more time not worrying about greater society, because 'we live in a free society', and thus, the government can consolidate its power far easier.

The majority of the south consisted of poor farmers. Slavery being would not have effected them in any meaningful economic way. The only people who slaves were rich.

Majority were poor, yes, but I disagree with your last two statements.

Just random speculation on your part.

Read up on John Calhoun, the most vocal proponent of southern rights. Thats what he feared. Look at it through the eyes of the south; why else, would the north, and the republican party, not want slavery to spread into the territories?

None of things you described are attacks that justify violence.

I'll refer to the good ol' line -
"Diplomacy comes first. But if it fails, then comes war."
Maybe we have passed a stage where national arguments do not need to degenerate into war, and where people can peacefully come to a solution. But if there were two economies, which prior to the 1860's THERE WERE in the US, then you can't really reconcile the differences.

So, the organized gangs with a unified message who are arrested because killing people is "morally wrong" are being opressed by "tyrants." Don't you think that the southerners might have been a bit more tyrannical, given that they enslaved people.

Listen, I never once argued that blacks should not have been freed; I think it was a good thing to the fullest extent of the word good. I'm just telling you, that prior to the 1860's, the political scene was limited to white people, southeners and northeners. If you take a look at the political scene from the south's side, then they feel within their rights to have taken the actions that ehy took.

Estimates among southern slave owners is normally about 15%, but most of those were only one slave. Only the very wealthy could afford to a large number. And please tell how having your profits lowered constitutes an "attack" that demands violence. That is just pathetic.

Hm........didn't an oil embargo against the japaneese trigger pearl harbor? It would have been similar in the destruction of the slave system, to the eyes of the southeners. Not the same, but similar.

People who know they have aids, rarely have unprotected sex, and I do not think that people will aids should have unprotected sex. However, having promiscous sex does not involve aids most of the time, so it is normally okay.

But if they do, and they infect someone, and that person dies as a result, should they be held accountable? Lets say, hypothetically, they didn't know they were infected. Or that a condom broke.

Religious societies are not in the best interest of the people. Science which leads to technology is. Almost every single industrialized, secular, society with high technology is a good place to live. Poor religious societies are not. Or do you think that religious South American countries have it better than the U.S.

It really depends on what the interest of the people is. Money does not buy happiness. Technology does not buy happiness.

Thats up to the people who live in the country.

And if the people base their law on racial supremacy, thats up to them to then, right?

Both parents working is not always optimal for childcare. If one parent can get enough money working full time, the other should help improve the children's lives. Of course, given economic pressures sometimes both parents must work full time to provide a basic lifestyle. Of course, their are other options like where both parents take part time jobs and they can both work and raise kids equally.

Granted, if people 'need' to make money, then they need to make money. But by and large, women today feel demeaned if they are going to be a housewife. Tell me how many girls nowadays want to by a wife when they grow up; and not a doctor,l lawyer, teacher,etc. Thank you feminism.

Formula is just more convenient than breast milk, it has nothing to do with anybody wanting to be more or less special.

Breast milk is far superior to the health of the baby. Why is convenience such a big thing, when raising a child?

Of course, I hate the fact that parents rely on TV and video game to raise kids. Then they go and blame the school and video games when something goes wrong. Parents need to take more responsibility and stop suing everyone else for their own failure.

And please tell me this;does promoting a 'free and equal' society, make this problem
A) More apparent
B) Less apparent

I think the evidence suggests A. That does not equal good.

 

[rathi]

No one is arguing about death here. We are arguing about freedoms, and liberty. I'm saying that if people in society want to beat their kids, for whatever reason they choose, they have a right to; telling them no is interfering in their life. The only way you can justify your position is if you say that the rights of the kid are equal to the rights of the parents. And what i'm saying, is that by giving the kid equal rights, you are inherently taking away the rights from the parents; thus, a middling standard is established, and anyone who is capable of 'standing above the crowd' is now cut down by the law, which is not good. IT fosters inferiority among the citizens, and people who are unable to take charge of a situation.

What the hell? You think that parents have a right to beat their kids for whatever
reason they choose? Once again, I hate to use moral arguments, but that is just messed up. A kid doesn't stand a chance against an adult, and they will lose no matter how tough
they might be. If you want to live in some crazy world in which violence rules, go to Liberia or somewhere else.

So if the majority of the nation wants to live in a theocracy, by christian law, they then have the right to. It doesn't matter if we live in constitutional government - they have the right to live in a christian nation, and they make the choices because they are the majority. Or something along those lines.

Once you get rid of the constitution, you have destroyed everything that is America. Advocating that is treason in the highest sense. That kind of action is the kind that leads to violence.

Paganism was still a religion. There was never anything 'secular' abuot marriage, until some liberals thought that marriage is merely some provisions in law.

Marriage is still mostly religious, that is why I want the government to get out of marriage and just have civil unions.

Not just law, but goals, and ends of life matter. The people establish the governments, which in turn establish the law. The law is there for a purpose; to keep order,and to try to give the citizens what they want. Yes,marriage gets defined in legal terms, but why have marriage at all? The people want there to be marriage; and the people want marriage to be a certain way. Government is there to implement those goals.

And? What you say is true, but whats the point?

So he associates with people, but doesn't really form interpersonal bonds like Mr. Chris does.

That is simply not true. People form strong bonds over almost anything. Sports, beer, politics, religion, video games, clothing, you name it.

People spend more time not worrying about greater society, because 'we live in a free society', and thus, the government can consolidate its power far easier.

Mixing religion and government is the faster road to tyranny than freedom is.

But if there were two economies, which prior to the 1860's THERE WERE in the US, then you can't really reconcile the differences.

Sure, the south could have realized that only the rich cared about slavery as a means of getting profits, and just let the slaves go and continue their farming.

Hm........didn't an oil embargo against the japaneese trigger pearl harbor? It would have been similar in the destruction of the slave system, to the eyes of the southeners. Not the same, but similar.

Yeah, Japan needed oil so it could continue to expand its empire. And its not a good idea to use them as an analogy, because nobody claims the Japanese attacked in self defense.

But if they do, and they infect someone, and that person dies as a result, should they be held accountable? Lets say, hypothetically, they didn't know they were infected. Or that a condom broke.

Accidents happen, get on with your life.

Granted, if people 'need' to make money, then they need to make money. But by and large, women today feel demeaned if they are going to be a housewife. Tell me how many girls nowadays want to by a wife when they grow up; and not a doctor,l lawyer, teacher,etc. Thank you feminism.

You are wrong. Many many many women are perfectly satisfied with being a housewife. They just don't think it is the only acceptable role. In addition, how many men think being a stay at home dad is demeaning? Thank you, stupid traditionalist gender roles.

Breast milk is far superior to the health of the baby. Why is convenience such a big thing, when raising a child?

I didn't claim that convenience was a good reason to avoid breastfeeding, only that it is the main reason.

And please tell me this;does promoting a 'free and equal' society, make this problem
A) More apparent
B) Less apparent

I think the evidence suggests A. That does not equal good.

No, our lawsuit happy legal system is responsible for this. Lawyers make gobs of cash fighting stupid cases that should never even be considered. Europe has similar freedoms to the U.S., yet it has far less of this blame the music/tv/movies/video games mentality.