Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

So, what IS marriage now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    OMG!! The world is going to hell in a handbasket!! When did that happen?

    We Christians have known this day was coming for a long time:

    2 Timothy 3New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
    2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
    3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
    4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
    No mention of homosexuality in this 2nd century epistle...but lots about selfishness and greed; sounds more like the GOP handbook!

    I hope you’re happy in heaven along with your Nigerians, Tunisians, Ghanaians, Senegalese, Ugandans and Kenyans and all the other morally decent folk that agree with you about evil homosexuality.
    Last edited by Tassman; 08-04-2015, 04:45 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      OMG!! The world is going to hell in a handbasket!! When did that happen?

      We Christians have known this day was coming for a long time:
      No mention of homosexuality in this 2nd century epistle...but lots about selfishness and greed; sounds more like the GOP handbook!
      What amuses me is how often and for how long Christians have been predicting imminent moral and social apocalypses (not to mention the actual end-times apocalypse). If, one day, in the distant future, a moral apocalypse actually happens they will say gleefully "see, we were right all along"... when in fact they were wrong all along, wrong every single time they said it was currently happening, and if they eventually happen to get it right it's only because "a stopped clock is right twice a day".

      It is rather sickening the way in the US selfishness and greed is tied into 'Christianity' in GOP politics. I could never quite fathom why the 'Christian right' was even a thing in America as it always struck me as an obvious contradiction in terms. The dominant Christian groups here in NZ are Anglicans and Catholics both of whom lean left-wing because of their Christianity and believe in a very strong social-gospel about actually carrying out the Bible's / Jesus's teaching of helping the poor (which it emphasizes about a quadrillion times). I recall at one election-night party which was attended by 20 of my Christian friends, 16 of us had voted for the most left-wing party possible (of ~7 parties) due to our belief that helping the poor and needy was the most Christian way to vote. I never have quite fathomed what weird quirks of their history caused Christianity to come to be aligned with right-wing economic policies in the US.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It was, and that alone defies your "age of consent" argument. So does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statut...nd_Juliet_laws



        Not in states with Romeo and Juliette laws.
        These laws only cover minor-minor relationships in some states, and this only for protecting minors from unnecessary prosecution as described in your reference.. The minor-adult relationship is illegal absolutely in all states based on age of consent laws. This would be a firm moral basis for states to have marriage laws to legally define marriage whether public or private.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          What amuses me is how often and for how long Christians have been predicting imminent moral and social apocalypses (not to mention the actual end-times apocalypse). If, one day, in the distant future, a moral apocalypse actually happens they will say gleefully "see, we were right all along"... when in fact they were wrong all along, wrong every single time they said it was currently happening, and if they eventually happen to get it right it's only because "a stopped clock is right twice a day".

          It is rather sickening the way in the US selfishness and greed is tied into 'Christianity' in GOP politics. I could never quite fathom why the 'Christian right' was even a thing in America as it always struck me as an obvious contradiction in terms. The dominant Christian groups here in NZ are Anglicans and Catholics both of whom lean left-wing because of their Christianity and believe in a very strong social-gospel about actually carrying out the Bible's / Jesus's teaching of helping the poor (which it emphasizes about a quadrillion times). I recall at one election-night party which was attended by 20 of my Christian friends, 16 of us had voted for the most left-wing party possible (of ~7 parties) due to our belief that helping the poor and needy was the most Christian way to vote. I never have quite fathomed what weird quirks of their history caused Christianity to come to be aligned with right-wing economic policies in the US.
          Christians vote to keep gay marriage illegal because it is unChristian, but they vote for the wealthy, who are certainly not going to their heaven when they die. It has nothing to do with doing one's best to follow Christ's teachings. It has to do with self-deification and selfishness.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            Christians vote to keep gay marriage illegal because it is unChristian, but they vote for the wealthy, who are certainly not going to their heaven when they die. It has nothing to do with doing one's best to follow Christ's teachings. It has to do with self-deification and selfishness.
            Libtards like you vote for the wealthy too.


            Jon Corzine net worth 300 Million
            John Kerry net worth 192 Million
            Mark Warner net worth 76 Million
            Al Gore net worth 100 Million
            Jane Harmon net worth 435 Million


            Plank... eye...
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Libtards like you vote for the wealthy too.
              There's a difference between the politicians themselves being wealthy, and them advocating for policies that hurt they poor and help the wealthy.

              There's also a problem in America that there's no left-wing party, just a centrist party and an extreme-right one.

              Comment


              • I was refraining from replying to this derail to avoid contributing to the derail. But since it's continuing, with Bill's participation, I'll respond, and leave it to Bill the Cat to ask this to be moved to another thread.

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                It is rather sickening the way in the US selfishness and greed is tied into 'Christianity' in GOP politics. I could never quite fathom why the 'Christian right' was even a thing in America as it always struck me as an obvious contradiction in terms. The dominant Christian groups here in NZ are Anglicans and Catholics both of whom lean left-wing because of their Christianity and believe in a very strong social-gospel about actually carrying out the Bible's / Jesus's teaching of helping the poor (which it emphasizes about a quadrillion times). I recall at one election-night party which was attended by 20 of my Christian friends, 16 of us had voted for the most left-wing party possible (of ~7 parties) due to our belief that helping the poor and needy was the most Christian way to vote. I never have quite fathomed what weird quirks of their history caused Christianity to come to be aligned with right-wing economic policies in the US.
                Voting to help the poor and needy really means voting to force other people to help the poor and needy.
                That's neither morally acceptable, nor a fulfillment of one's own moral duty to be charitable. And yet, those who would vote that way ironically call the opposition "selfish" and "greedy".

                (Side note: When you "can't fathom" why someone thinks what they do, you probably don't actually understand their position.)

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                There's a difference between the politicians themselves being wealthy, and them advocating for policies that hurt they poor and help the wealthy.
                I propose that laissez-faire economic policy helps the poor, reduces inequality, and tends to oppose monopolies and cartels.
                And, I propose that the worst of "leftist" economic policies directly harm poor people and help the wealthy.
                The 'best' of "leftist" economic policies are at least as likely to harm the poor as to help them.

                There's also a problem in America that there's no left-wing party, just a centrist party and an extreme-right one.
                Despite their sometimes polarizing rhetoric, the two big parties in the U.S. are not very different in practice.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                  Voting to help the poor and needy really means voting to force other people to help the poor and needy.
                  To an extent, yes.

                  That's neither morally acceptable, nor a fulfillment of one's own moral duty to be charitable.
                  That the poor get helped is an extremely important moral good, whereas the tiny infringement on personal freedom that taking away a tiny bit of some rich person's excessive wealth that they weren't using is a tiny moral evil, so the first outweighs the second by an order of magnitude. Knowing that the money I pay in taxes goes to help the poor is something I find greatly fulfilling to my sense of moral duty to be charitable. I would love to see my taxes go up and more poor helped with that money. Until then, I will continue to use some of my own money to help the poor in addition to the taxes I pay.

                  I propose that laissez-faire economic policy helps the poor, reduces inequality, and tends to oppose monopolies and cartels.
                  I propose that your libertarian economic ideas are not based on any empirical realities and are instead based on wonky logic regarding dumb models of how people 'ought' to behave, which are empirically false and wrong in every single way possible whenever they are tested against actual reality. And that your economic policies would have the effect of letting the poor die in the gutters.

                  Despite their sometimes polarizing rhetoric, the two big parties in the U.S. are not very different in practice.

                  Nope, they are very very different on numerous issues in many important ways.

                  Though I think that you would benefit from having more parties. The best way to fix that is to change the voting system to a proportional voting system (I recommend STV). We used to have only two parties here when we had a voting system the same as your current one, and about 20 years ago we changed to a proportional voting system (MMP) and now we have ~7 parties (although the previous two parties are still the two largest parties).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    To an extent, yes.
                    It's exactly what it is.

                    That the poor get helped is an extremely important moral good
                    Who is doing the moral good? The person being forced? The agent doing the forcing (via the threat of physical force)? The person who voted in favor of the second person forcing the first? None of them.
                    This isn't justice (it's the opposite of justice), and it's isn't charity (which is giving what is yours).
                    A person could be helped by mere natural forces, but that wouldn't be a moral good.
                    Thus morally speaking, it is only wrongdoing.

                    the first outweighs the second by an order of magnitude.
                    Because it's not a moral good, you are only making a utilitarian comparison here, not a moral comparison. Such utilitarianism runs into lots of problems. For example, suppose Alice steals one of Bob's kidneys and gives it to Charlie (while perhaps Alice keeps her own two kidneys). By your utilitarian comparison you could say that the good far outweighs the bad because it saves Charlie's life while only taking an excess kidney from Bob. Yet Alice committed an injustice.

                    (Also your "taking away a tiny bit of some rich person's excessive wealth that they weren't using" contains several untrue assumptions.)

                    Knowing that the money I pay in taxes goes to help the poor is something I find greatly fulfilling to my sense of moral duty to be charitable. I would love to see my taxes go up and more poor helped with that money. Until then, I will continue to use some of my own money to help the poor in addition to the taxes I pay.
                    You don't need taxes for any of that. You can freely donate as much as you want to the government. But it would be even better to cut out the overhead of the government and give more directly.

                    I propose that your libertarian economic ideas are not based on any empirical realities and are instead based on wonky logic regarding dumb models of how people 'ought' to behave, which are empirically false and wrong in every single way possible whenever they are tested against actual reality. And that your economic policies would have the effect of letting the poor die in the gutters.
                    I propose that your economic ideas do not match reality.
                    (Was it you that had those wonky ideas about how marginal cost and marginal revenue work in another thread?)


                    Nope, they are very very different on numerous issues in many important ways.
                    In what ways? Regardless which party is in the majority, they both expand the welfare state, they both expand the regulatory state, they both vote for war. Just in slightly different ways and different rates.

                    Though I think that you would benefit from having more parties. The best way to fix that is to change the voting system to a proportional voting system (I recommend STV). We used to have only two parties here when we had a voting system the same as your current one, and about 20 years ago we changed to a proportional voting system (MMP) and now we have ~7 parties (although the previous two parties are still the two largest parties).
                    I agree that a different voting system would probably improve that.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      Because it's not a moral good, you are only making a utilitarian comparison here, not a moral comparison.
                      Utilitarianism is my moral view (or pretty close to it anyway), so I fail to see the difference you are asserting.

                      I propose that your economic ideas do not match reality.
                      (Was it you that had those wonky ideas about how marginal cost and marginal revenue work in another thread?)
                      I tried to correct your non-factual views on marginal cost and revenue, yes.

                      Regardless which party is in the majority, they both expand the welfare state, they both expand the regulatory state, they both vote for war.
                      None of that is true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Utilitarianism is my moral view (or pretty close to it anyway), so I fail to see the difference you are asserting.
                        Like I said, that has lots of problems. (And you should be able to "fathom" that other people might not be utilitarians.)

                        I tried to correct your non-factual views on marginal cost and revenue, yes.
                        Ha ha. And then I proved you wrong.

                        Instead of debating you more here, perhaps it is sufficient to point out that many intelligent, knowledgeable people disagree on the effects of these policies. And all you seem to care about is the net effect of these policies. The point then, is that you said you cannot fathom how anyone could vote for "policies that hurt they poor and help the wealthy," but surely you could understand that people disagree on what the net effects of the policies are.

                        Originally posted by Joel
                        Regardless which party is in the majority, they both expand the welfare state, they both expand the regulatory state, they both vote for war.
                        None of that is true.
                        It's all true. For example, when the Republicans were in power during the G.W.Bush years, they expanded the welfare state, including a huge expansion of Medicare. Federal spending on welfare, social security, health care, and education all increased during these years, with the total increasing at a faster rate than the previous decade.

                        They also expanded the regulatory state.
                        "Since 2001 [up to 2008], the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new [annual] regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone."
                        http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...the-bush-years

                        And the leading Democrats have tended to vote for war. Most of the Senate Democrats voted to invade Iraq. They supported the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under Bush they've supported bombing in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. There have been more bombs dropped (and on more countries) under Obama, than Bush. And the Democrat leadership has consistently supported Obama. Except that Democrats have been disappointed that Obama has not waged as much war upon ISIS as they would like.

                        Most of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Patriot Act (there was only 1 dissenting vote in the Senate). And Democrat leaders still support maintaining (and even expanding) the offensive provisions of the Patriot Act and the domestic surveillance state in general.

                        One thing I left off my list before was that both parties tend to support increasing invasions into most aspects of our personal lives. (Though they differ somewhat on which aspects.) If anything, I think Democrats tend to be worse, wanting to control what people put into their bodies, and what people do for their own health and safety; wanting to control people's education, control how parents raise their children, control thoughts and speech, what car you drive, your retirement plan, your voluntary exchanges, how you may and may not use the water you purchase, what you may do to your house, what light bulbs, toilets, and shower heads you may use. They want to internet gambling banned. And so on.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Libtards like you vote for the wealthy too.


                          Jon Corzine net worth 300 Million
                          John Kerry net worth 192 Million
                          Mark Warner net worth 76 Million
                          Al Gore net worth 100 Million
                          Jane Harmon net worth 435 Million


                          Plank... eye...
                          Of course. I don't worship a messiah who told his followers that the people I vote for are not going to heaven and then claim to be voting based on that messiah's will.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            Of course. I don't worship a messiah who told his followers that the people I vote for are not going to heaven and then claim to be voting based on that messiah's will.
                            Neither do I. Your point?
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Neither do I. Your point?
                              I think the majority of American conservative Christians would agree that Matthew 19 is an accurate account and that they vote the way they think God wants them to.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                                I think the majority of American conservative Christians would agree that Matthew 19 is an accurate account and that they vote the way they think God wants them to.
                                I think you give the general electorate too much credit. That would involve thinking, which a majority of them on both sides simply are incapable of doing.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Ronson, Today, 05:57 PM
                                0 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by seer, Today, 11:31 AM
                                8 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Bill the Cat, Today, 06:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                70 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-19-2022, 10:59 AM
                                89 responses
                                483 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 05-18-2022, 07:43 AM
                                3 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X