 |
I'm not going to endlessly debate abortion and women's rights. I don't believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn child. The child is a consequence of her actions and has a right to life. The responsible thing to do is avoid the problem, particularly considering the resultant consequences. If women don't have the intelligence to figure this out then stop shouting equality
To be clear, I completely agree that men have a responsibility in this situation. We tend to look at women as objects for our gratification, yet they end up with most of the responsibility. It is an unfair situation. My appeal is for us to exercise some common sense.
I think requires a very different moral code
After the deed is done what's the next step? Geez JL after you get all riled up your capacity to become VERY reasonable is commendable. Glad you're here, love the back and forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Whose moral code is the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
PS
Glad you're here too Clete, just want to take a minute to tell you that as I pour my second cup. I know once we get warmed up the knives will come out, but for now can you put another shrimp on the barby for me?
I Thai red curried the prawns last night Tal, possibly still paying for it, but I reserve my barby for snags and T-bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The moral code I was speaking of is the one where you avoid getting the girl pregnant or getting pregnant. Used to be it had serious consequences both socially and sometimes physically. As I said earlier a reinvention of the chastity belt for those who can't control themselves and an absence of enticing the other sex
Here is my objection to your position.
1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.
2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.
3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.
4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.
5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.
I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.
Out of wedlock birth unless people are in a committed relationship is undesirable
Yes people do have sex because they are unable to contain their emotions
I believe the responsible attitude is to abstain from sex outside of marriage
I don't think unmarried mothers should be supported by the state, however you cannot allow the family to starve
I am not a "liberal"
It is time for there to be a social compact and that might include sterilisation of those who continually wantonly add to the population, men and women both.
I was answering Tal. I would think you and I are in general agreement.Quote:
I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.
jlisenbe; Here is my objection to your position.
1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.
Where are your links to back that up. For one out of wedlock is a term you need to define because modern couples find that a committed relationships without the religious attachment, pomp, or ceremony works for them. Does it work for you?
2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.
Again you need to define your terms because despite your implications it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with your long term partner.
3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.
We can agree on that, but stuff happens and a few women on this forum have used more than one form of birth control and gotten pregnant.
4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.
That's not written in stone, and is but a challenge that MANY have overcome to find happiness and fulfillment. Goes back to what I said, learned from real life experience, a mistake is human and it's how you deal with it that counts.
5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.
That's not what I said, nor is it my position. I explicitly said we should have a strong social safety net for those AMERICAN can get help in hard and bad times and that is not restrict to unmarried woman, but unemployed men and children, and old people. Hey guy stuff happens.
We already have a process for that which doesn't include knocking on your door and handing over money. Its called welfare, Medicaid, and social security and there is an orderly process of application and acceptance with guidelines for compliance. How a nation treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into the morals and values of that country.
Is it any of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors or what religion they adhere too? NO! So bring on those links so we can get to the facts of the matter. And read what I wrote more closely.
We have a social compact in America, though sterilization is NOT a part of it unless that's what a female wants, otherwise it's illegal and punishable by law. The social contract though not enough for some, and too much for others, so we debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It is rather amusing that you seem unable to see that having a poor person come to your door is the same thing, functionally, as having the taxman come to your door. It is still the idea that a one American has some legal right to the wealth and income of other Americans. Unless, of course, you believe that there is a money tree located somewhere in Washington.Quote:
That's not what I said, nor is it my position. I explicitly said we should have a strong social safety net for those AMERICAN can get help in hard and bad times and that is not restrict to unmarried woman, but unemployed men and children, and old people. Hey guy stuff happens.
We already have a process for that which doesn't include knocking on your door and handing over money. Its called welfare, Medicaid, and social security and there is an orderly process of application and acceptance with guidelines for compliance.
Even more to the point, how TAL treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into his soul. When your moral point of reference is what others do, then it just becomes empty platitudes.Quote:
How a nation treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into the morals and values of that country.
By the way, where did you get that moral value you are expressing, and why do you believe you have the right to impose it on the rest of the country? It's strange to me that so many people are quick to protest the imposition of moral values such as restricting abortion or marriage, but are enthusiastic about imposing their moral values of welfare and social nets on the rest of us.
I will agree fully that all us have a moral obligation to the poor, but that is for individuals to carry out. It just means nothing when one person attempts to force a second person to take care of a third person.
It came from my Christian upbringing by my parents, if you want to know, and boggles my mind that you are so hyped up over this out of wedlock sex thing taking your money yet say NOTHING when a huge international company just takes your local tax money to build a place where the workers need welfare to have food shelter and clothes.
HMMMM?
,Quote:
It came from my Christian upbringing by my parents, if you want to know
So why do you get to impose your moral value on the rest of the country?
I'll say if for about the fifth time. I would like for you, or anyone, to justify how any one American can lay a legal claim on the wealth or income of any other American. Slice it any way you want, but that is exactly what welfare is.Quote:
boggles my mind that you are so hyped up over this out of wedlock sex thing taking your money
That has not happened in my area, at least not to my knowledge. If it has happened in yours, and you feel strongly about it, then raise it as an issue. I can understand that. Frankly, if we could get a "huge international company" to come in to our area and pay 20 or more dollars an hour to several hundred workers, then I would vote personally to give that company a short term (which is what most of them are, at least to my understanding) tax break. A business creating jobs benefits the entire community and is the best welfare program I know of.Quote:
yet say NOTHING when a huge international company just takes your local tax money to build a place where the workers need welfare to have food shelter and clothes.
Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?Quote:
I would like for you, or anyone, to justify how any one American can lay a legal claim on the wealth or income of any other American.
That is a wonderful, charitable sounding reply, but it is not consistent. You say you are more than willing to help in any way you can. That is good, and I agree with you. But then you change direction when you say, "Isn't that what our taxes do?" Now you are wanting to get other people to help, and in fact force them to help. That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?Quote:
Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?
Since you believe we are all in this together, and that other Americans have legal claim to your income, are you OK with one of them coming by and insisting you give them money? That is precisely what is happening, except that the feds wash it through the government to make it look OK.
I love charity and engage in it, but I'm hesitant to impose my belief in that regard on everyone.
tal there is no virtue in giving because you are compelled to do so .
Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!
That's how it's done in America so quit the right wing bellyaching and the notion of being compelled. Or go tell your boss to stop taking out taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.
Well said!Quote:
Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?
You don't pay taxes?Quote:
Now you are wanting to get other people to help
Does that also apply to your incessant harping about corporate welfare? We are discussing policy. That's how it goes.Quote:
Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!
Funny. I am to drop the "compelled to crap", but then you tell me to see what happens when I stop paying taxes. That kind of comes from the "compelled to" part.Quote:
Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!
That's how it's done in America so quit the right wing bellyaching and the notion of being compelled. Or go tell your boss to stop taking out taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.
Still haven't heard how it is that any American has a right to the income of another American.
Wondergirl, I'll ask it again. "That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?"
Neither of you has bothered to answer that.
I pay taxes. I have no idea where your question came from. We are all compelled to pay taxes.
What are those taxes used for?Quote:
I pay taxes. I have no idea where your question came from. We are all compelled to pay taxes.
Many things. Some legitimate (at least to me), and some not. However, I do not believe any American has any legal right to the income of any other American. Put another way, no American should be compelled to support another American.Quote:
What are those taxes used for?
Peeps you must forgive me if that's possible because I am totally PO'd
PO #1
Yesterday the Intel community collectively gave a press conference and said The Russians hacked, and are still hacking our election system, and Facebook the day before confirmed that foreign actors are still setting up fake accounts and spreading rumors and lies faster than they can take them down and this is across numerous social media platforms. The Dufus went to Pennsylvania yesterday and had the audacity to call the Russian Investigation a big hoax and it was hurting relationships between Russia and the US. The crowd went wild.
WHAAAA? What will it take to make the Dufus protect his people?
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...FWdrl.wwVg--~C
PO #2
The DOJ just told the ACLU it was their job to find and reunite children separated from their parents because of this zero tolerance policy on the southern border. Luckily the Federal judge excoriated the DOJ, and Dufus administration and ordered them to do their jobs that they screwed up royally in the first place.
Whew, that helped. For the record it's not me imposing MY morals on anyone. See your lawmakers, but don't put it on me. You held your nose and voted for this Dufus, go complain to him.
OK. I thought you were advocating for the welfare system, which would be imposing your moral values on others. I guess you were just... talking? Rambling? Waiting on dinner? Who knows.Quote:
"For the record it's not me imposing MY morals on anyone. See your lawmakers, but don't put it on me."
I advocate for a STRONG SOCIAL Safety net big enough to help ALL American during Bad and hard times. Actually at the moment I am taking a break after making dinner.
Are you one of those anti government folks?
Another way of saying that you support compelling one American to support another American, which is you imposing your moral values on others. I wish you'd just admit it. You know it's true and I know it's true.Quote:
I advocate for a STRONG SOCIAL Safety net big enough to help ALL American during Bad and hard times. Actually at the moment I am taking a break after making dinner.
Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What's YOUR plan?
Well you wouldn't know it from some of the comments here. What Tal just advocated is " from each according to his need from each according to their ability" which is communist just as you have advocated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You either have a capitalist system which is someone owns the means of production and pays someone else to do the work, or you have a system where the state owns the means of production and pays everyone to do the work, which we know to be communist. You can have hybrid systems where the state intervenes in key industries in order to ensure allocation of resources and these work much better than wholly market based systems based on profit
Sorta like in the New Testament:Quote:
" from each according to his need from each according to their ability"
Acts 2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Philippians 2:4 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
James 2:14-17 14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
I'm not denying that Christian values reflect the need to look after the less fortunate however is this an individual mandate? Or a government mandate? In today's society the obligation has been abdicated to government and of course there is never enough, thus the need for increased taxation of those who earn more to satisfy the needs of the less advantaged. God's economy is based on giving but man's economy is based on grabbing so the two are incompatible and thus trying to apply the values of one to the other doesn't workQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And all voluntary! Just imagine that the early church did all of that without Wondergirl or the feds to enforce compliance.
I'll say it one last time. It is not charity when A wants to force B to take care of C. It's just a fake, cheap copy of the real thing carried out, frequently, by people who have no intention of troubling themselves personally to help C.
No I support being compelled to obey the law, just as I am compelled to, as we all are. See, we are in the same boat, but YOU don't like your seat. You can beetch, or you can go through the process of changing it. Those are your choices. That's the proper way of good orderly direction, so don't impose your chaos on me. That how I handle my peeves and get redress for them. I vote! Sometimes I don't win.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.
Then stop the constant nonsense that is the moral thing to do and lecturing us on how to be Christian . Yes we are compelled to do so because it is the law . Don't pretend that it has anything to do with morals and virtue .Quote:
Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." (Ben Franklin )
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49 percent.” (Thomas Jefferson)
“Every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” (H.L. Menken)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (CS Lewis)
Compelled to obey the law, sounds like freedom to me, the freedom of the gun totting leftists dictator society where the government owns the guns and the peons do what they are told, the ultimate socialist dream. That boat is sinking TalQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Now that's a fair statement. I'm glad we've come to understand that you believe in enforcing your moral vision on others (we all do) and that some Americans have a legal and moral claim on the income of other Americans. I despise that idea. So we just disagree. I still think the country would change dramatically if the feds would issue poor people a voucher entitling them to some of the money of others. That would at least be an honest representation of what is happening.Quote:
Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.
Uhm... no. According to Jefferson, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Liberty would mean that Wondergirl cannot compel me to engage in her ideas of charity. She can pursue them, but cannot compel me to pursue them.Quote:
Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?
My plan is to involve myself, as I have done for many years, in the pursuit of helping those less fortunate than me. This is a weekly engagement for my wife and me. It is responding to what Jesus tells us to do, to love our neighbor. That is never presented as a government undertaking. Now I encourage you and others to do so as well, but will not even think about compelling you to do so. Are you currently involving yourself, personally, in helping to love your neighbor as yourself? Is Christ your Saviour and Lord? Have you responded to the gospel message? These are the important questions.Quote:
What's YOUR plan?
So you don't think your government should serve all the people, just the ones YOU deem worthy? I finally got you.
I think the government should serve all the people. I don't think the government should take money from one American to give to another individual American. I don't believe any individual American has the right to another American's money. But to serve all the people, collectively, is exactly what government is for. To establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for defense, and promote the general welfare.Quote:
So you don't think your government should serve all the people, just the ones YOU deem worthy? I finally got you.
I'll say it again, Tal, for you have yet to address this. Your concept of charity is to force other Americans to do what you want done with their money. And again, that is a cheap, fake imitation charity.
How does government do those things without REVENUES?
Are now there is the trick, you have heard of tariffs, it is what started your country, you tax imports rather than incomes and if you can't get enough money doing that you are not trying. Every tax is unpopular particularly in a place where they had an insurrection over taxes and you could try death duties; a tax on capital, stamp duties on property transfer; another tax on capital but don't tax incomesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Then why do we pay both state and federal income taxes by April 15th?Quote:
you tax imports rather than income
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM. |