• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is What Happens Without Mandatory Family Values

Because it all seems so familiar. If you know what I mean. And I think you do.
To be clear, I don't revel in anyone going to Hell. In my best case scenario, everyone finds salvation in their own way...

...but some people don't care to be saved. I just don't want those people dragging others down with them.
 
To be clear, I don't revel in anyone going to Hell. In my best case scenario, everyone finds salvation in their own way...

...but some people don't care to be saved. I just don't want those people dragging others down with them.

I just knew this drivel was going to turn out to be religiously inspired.
 
Lemme guess, mask and vaccine mandates are a problem for you, but mandatory morality programs: A-OK in your book, right....and you and
poeple who think LIKE you get to be the authority picking and choosing who procreates, who gets to go to work and who gets to.....

(Insert seventy page of allowable/forbidden actions here)

Is there a master race and official religion in this scenario, too?
Masks and vaccine mandates are proving to be much less than promised. The virus is air borne so that's part of the problem, the vaccine isn't a vaccine it's a therapeutic, that's another difficulty. More and more we are reading about fully vaccinated people getting Covid, and getting it twice.
 
I just knew this drivel was going to turn out to be religiously inspired.
This is what Lursa said:

"How do you know he's wrong about 'the other guy?' He was a Catholic mouthpiece that wanted to suck all the happiness out of the world and took glee in those that he believed would burn in Hell."

I was addressing that.
 
I'm an idealist, not a utopian.

Idealism is practical, pragmatism is utopian. People think before we act. Those who learn from experience unfortunately learn the hard way how past performance doesn't guarantee future results.
And somehow you think being an idealist is somehow better than being a utopian? Given the arguments against your position, it appears that you did not think this through before posting. As such you are learning the hard way why your fantasy world cannot work. I bet even that your past performance on this subject was just as dogmatic now as it was then.
 
You are far safer with pragmatists than idealists.

Pragmatists think everyone is evil and dumb.

Idealists think that everyone except themselves are evil and dumb.

This thread is a perfect example of that.
 
Ok, why are you telling me this?
To make sure you know that he HAS KIDS and is DOING IT RIGHT.

Just in case you might have thought that he doesn't have kids and/or isn't doing it right.
 
And somehow you think being an idealist is somehow better than being a utopian? Given the arguments against your position, it appears that you did not think this through before posting. As such you are learning the hard way why your fantasy world cannot work. I bet even that your past performance on this subject was just as dogmatic now as it was then.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here. I've talked with tons of passengers in my car about this exact problem since so many of them were parents dropping their kids off at day care and they said how day care was getting harder and harder to come by. They would mention how staff was quitting, and how they were fed up with other kids in their classes throwing fits which got backed up by the parents who brought them there.

A lot of them came from unruly neighborhoods too where they were upset with their neighbors for making poor life choices and didn't see why they should have to suffer because their kids had to associate with the kids of those who made poor life choices.
 
You are far safer with pragmatists than idealists.

Pragmatists think everyone is evil and dumb.

Idealists think that everyone except themselves are evil and dumb.

This thread is a perfect example of that.
Pragmatism comes from the secularization of postmillennialism which tries to predict the endtimes from a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations.

Idealists understand how the future can be revealed in many different ways, so we should be openminded to all of that potential instead of presuming potential will actualize in a specific direction.

Likewise, practical people adapt to the circumstances at hand instead of jumping to conclusions.

Utopians assume the future will be OK if people just follow their lead.

Again, idealism is practical. Pragmatism is utopian.
 
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here. I've talked with tons of passengers in my car about this exact problem since so many of them were parents dropping their kids off at day care and they said how day care was getting harder and harder to come by. They would mention how staff was quitting, and how they were fed up with other kids in their classes throwing fits which got backed up by the parents who brought them there.

A lot of them came from unruly neighborhoods too where they were upset with their neighbors for making poor life choices and didn't see why they should have to suffer because their kids had to associate with the kids of those who made poor life choices.
You drive a cab? Listen to the radio much?
 
You drive a cab? Listen to the radio much?
XDU stands for ex-Diamond Uber. I'd play music for the passengers all the time.

I was one of the best if not the best in Western North Carolina at what I did.

Typically used to work 80 hours per week and netted $2k after expenses. Best weeks were 100 hours for $3k.
 
You said, "he seems to have no tolerance for those that disagree with him."
Take a look at what you wrote as the title to this thread. You are not being tolerant at all. You obviously do not tolerate people who in your opinion do not have "family values". If you did have some tolerance towards such people you would have never found the need to make this thread. Your main assertion is one of intolerance of those who do not share the same concept of family values that you hold..
 
Take a look at what you wrote as the title to this thread. You are not being tolerant at all. You obviously do not tolerate people who in your opinion do not have "family values". If you did have some tolerance towards such people you would have never found the need to make this thread. Your main assertion is one of intolerance of those who do not share the same concept of family values that you hold..
When I think of tolerance, I think of it on a substantial level, not a procedural level.

If someone's beliefs result in substantial intolerance, then they don't deserve to be tolerated.
 
What authority would you be basing this 'morality' for the 'family values' on?

The "authority" which if ignored would drastically increase dental costs.
 
When I think of tolerance, I think of it on a substantial level, not a procedural level.

If someone's beliefs result in substantial intolerance, then they don't deserve to be tolerated.
What you explained (above) is how intolerance is accepted by intolerant people. In other words, you just admitted to being intolerant.
 
Masks and vaccine mandates are proving to be much less than promised. The virus is air borne so that's part of the problem, the vaccine isn't a vaccine it's a therapeutic, that's another difficulty. More and more we are reading about fully vaccinated people getting Covid, and getting it twice.
So much fail in one short post. First, you are completely wrong that the vaccines are 'therapeutics.' You need to get a dictionary. Therapeutics treat sickness, the vaccines are designed to prevent illness. And they succeed in preventing most serious illness. No vaccines work 100%. And with a novel virus, they had no idea how to predict how long protective immunity would last. Another of your ill-informed expectations.

And what vaccine mandate didnt work? Several were overturned so you dont even know if they would have worked.
 
Why are you asking me, you were the one who said it?

If someone's beliefs result in substantial intolerance, then they don't deserve to be tolerated.

Explain what you meant by that sentence? It appears to me that you are saying that is ok to be intolerant of people that YOU judged. That is exactly the position of the intolerant. Why you are intolerant is of little to no importance when you claim that you are always tolerant. But you see you asserted intolerance of people with who you disagree.
 
Why are you asking me, you were the one who said it?



Explain what you meant by that sentence? It appears to me that you are saying that is ok to be intolerant of people that YOU judged. That is exactly the position of the intolerant. Why you are intolerant is of little to no importance when you claim that you are always tolerant. But you see you asserted intolerance of people with who you disagree.
You're asking me to bridge your conclusion about my premises? How does that make sense?

I asked you to explain your own conclusion from my premises.
 
You're asking me to bridge your conclusion about my premises? How does that make sense?

I asked you to explain your own conclusion from my premises.
I am explaining my conclusions but you refused to engage. That is why I said it appears that you are intolerant of people that you judged.

If someone's beliefs result in substantial intolerance, then they don't deserve to be tolerated.

See the bolded part? Welp that is you asserting that you are intolerant. It is plain and simple you said that you are intolerant of people based on their beliefs.

Are you going, to be honest, or try some more deflections? You are the one that wrote that sentence own it and admit that your premise is flawed.
 
Masks and vaccine mandates are proving to be much less than promised. The virus is air borne so that's part of the problem, the vaccine isn't a vaccine it's a therapeutic, that's another difficulty. More and more we are reading about fully vaccinated people getting Covid, and getting it twice.

Do you actually think that anyone takes ANYTHING you say about COVID seriously? I ask because I want you to understand that I do not.
I consider your views on COVID to be that of "The Six Blind Men of Indostan"....nay, LESS than that.

I.
T'was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

II.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

III.
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

IV.
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

V.
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

VI.
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

VII.
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

VIII.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

---You're not even PARTLY right.
 
Mmm... the Constitution recognizes what the founding fathers believed to be important at the time of its writing. The document is not preceded by a deeply metaphysical contemplation as to the definition of rights.

What the document is preceded by is the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is so vague on so many levels I don't know where to start. The abstractions of order, union, justice, tranquility, etc. leave such breadth of interpretation that it really isn't clear what's meant. It's almost as if the founding fathers were trying to set the Constitution up for an interpretative disaster, especially over the long-term.

What the Constitution should have started with is an understanding of the beginning of human life and civilization. It should have started with a realization that people don't consent to be born, that the rule of law is a decision that's made in contrast to living in an anarchic state of nature, that the force of law requires people to participate, and that the government exists because the people's decision to participate brings it into existence...

...but the Constitution didn't start with that, so what in the world does the Constitution really mean?
Did you read the Preamble? Good place to start.
 
Back
Top Bottom