• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

vote your conscience not your wallet

DeletedUser

Personal responsibility in not defined in social obligation. Social obligation is what someone is required to do (under threat of prosecution or persecution) by others.

Society is made up of the individuals within it. It is only because of the collective desire to ensure that everyone follows the same rules, that society comes up with institutional arrangements (governments, courts, legislative bodies, regulatory bodies) as an attempt to define and enforce unwritten social norms. I.e., to codify what is acceptable and what is not.

Personal responsibly includes being accountable to acknowledging those norms and formal laws that exist in a society, though you have the right, in fact one could argue the duty, to try to change them and make them better through social and political engagement.

Each system of government is different, even among democracies, reflecting to some extent the varied, and evolving, collective desires of the individuals within that society to establish boundaries for behaviors members of society can exercise. However, you do not have the ‘right’ to ignore social institutions and norms because you personally don’t feel like it.

Human beings are innately social animals, and every society has its rules and codes of expected behavior, and ways to enforce them. And no, that does not stop at your property line. Since the concept of private property is also one of those rules reflecting beliefs of the society, and is enforced by social institutions (courts, police...), it is also subject to being defined and controlled by society. You can’t have a meth lab in your house or sell drugs to grade school students; nor can own slaves, beat a child as you desire, torture animals because you want to (e.g. dog fighting), dump hazardous liquids into the ground to contaminate the ground water, etc, etc. etc.)

Personal responsibly is intimately and inextricably bound to social obligations. Unless you want to live a monastic life, and reject all the obligations and privileges that comes from living in a society, you have a personal obligation to respect social obligations, even as you work to change them.


If we were still a nation of laws, these people would be facing military tribunals for treason. Sorry, only difference between the US and any other banana republic is better tech and indoor plumbing. The facade of decency.

I made it clear, repeatedly, that every organization (governmental, corporations, churches, etc) has problems with corruption. You seem to negate the absolutely essential role of government in setting boundaries on personal behavior, just because government suffers from some corrupt politicians or from some inefficient or ineffective laws. This, despite the fact that no organization is immune from inefficiency and abuse of powers. That is the whole reason for various systems of checks and balances (including courts and the press you so love to bash). Imperfect as they are, and they are flawed, they are the best mechanisms that the world has ever know to set up multiple centers of power (Executive, legislative, judiciary, as well and federal, state and local) that have power to oversee and hold accountable the other centers of power. And it largely works.

Truly, have you actually lived in in developing countries? Not just visited, or been stationed there. But actually, lived and worked there, subject to laws, their political and social processes, etc? I have. It is amazing how some folks do not appreciate how incredibly fortunate North Americans and Western Europeans are, to live in a society where courts largely work, with access to a free press and multiple sources of information, where you publicly state your political and religious opinions without being hauled to jail.

This is what bothers me the most about the continual attack and efforts to undermine our democratic institutions such as courts. It shows a lack of pride in the sacrifices made over the years for the country and in its institutions. Our democratic governments exist because generations of Americans and Europeans sacrificed their lives for them. We are the envy of the world for our enduring democratic systems, despite their many flaws, which I repeatedly acknowledged. That is whey everyone tries to come to Europe and North America; they want the same safety, stability and democracy that seems to be taken for granted more and more by right- and left-wing populists.

Voting still remains the best option for ensuring everyone has a voice. Yes, it is tedious (at times boring) work to help elect those you feel can be honest public servants, and who represent your beliefs. It also means accepting that your opinions will not be reflected always in decisions made. That is the nature of democracy, for political representatives to find workable solutions that meet as many of the needs of the many without sacrificing too many rights of the minority.

What is your alternative that would measurably improve the lives of all, without sacrificing the welfare of the weakest? What is your practical alternative to working through the existing political systems to reduce waste and corruption?

Can you provide a real world example of a better alternative to representative democracy as practiced in the US or Western Europe, with all their flaws, that does a measurably better job in ensuring that every single human being’s rights will be better protected, regardless of how poor they are, what ethnicity they have, or what beliefs they have (political, religious, etc.)?

Can you provide a single example of one country, where the government is better, or where the lack of a government makes it better? Russia, China, Haiti, Monaco, Singapore, where?[/QUOTE]
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Swift and sure. I'm glad William Barr re-instituted it at the Federal level. I'm glad it will first be used against those who abused and killed children. My only disappointment is that I don't feel we live in a Country where we will ever see it used again for treason. Seems the folks guilty of that are now 'above the law.'
See, now I’m thinking when you say right vs wrong, you really just mean conservative vs liberal where the conservative POV is always right. We haven’t discussed a single topic yet where you side with liberals. Anyway, did you know that capital punishment is pure evil ? The only true judge and executioner is God. Men can play judge and jury all they want and lock up people, even innocent ones, to take them out of society. However, it is never, and I mean never , morally OK to kill someone. Never. It’s a commandment. Do you think there are exceptions?

If God intended there to be, He would have stated so. Did you know that families of victims who have watched executions feel nothing but emptiness afterwards? What does it do? It doesn’t bring back their loved one, and the one who committed the crime is no longer suffering in this world. Do you think everyone executed by man goes to Hell? Who are you to say? You aren’t the Judge.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I made it clear, repeatedly, that every organization (governmental, corporations, churches, etc) has problems with corruption. You seem to negate the absolutely essential role of government in setting boundaries on personal behavior, just because government suffers from some corrupt politicians or from some inefficient or ineffective laws. This, despite the fact that no organization is immune from inefficiency and abuse of powers. That is the whole reason for various systems of checks and balances (including courts and the press you so love to bash). Imperfect as they are, and they are flawed, they are the best mechanisms that the world has ever know to set up multiple centers of power (Executive, legislative, judiciary, as well and federal, state and local) that have power to oversee and hold accountable the other centers of power. And it largely works.

Truly, have you actually lived in in developing countries? Not just visited, or been stationed there. But actually, lived and worked there, subject to laws, their political and social processes, etc? I have. It is amazing how some folks do not appreciate how incredibly fortunate North Americans and Western Europeans are, to live in a society where courts largely work, with access to a free press and multiple sources of information, where you publicly state your political and religious opinions without being hauled to jail.

This is what bothers me the most about the continual attack and efforts to undermine our democratic institutions such as courts. It shows a lack of pride in the sacrifices made over the years for the country and in its institutions. Our democratic governments exist because generations of Americans and Europeans sacrificed their lives for them. We are the envy of the world for our enduring democratic systems, despite their many flaws, which I repeatedly acknowledged. That is whey everyone tries to come to Europe and North America; they want the same safety, stability and democracy that seems to be taken for granted more and more by right- and left-wing populists.

Voting still remains the best option for ensuring everyone has a voice. Yes, it is tedious (at times boring) work to help elect those you feel can be honest public servants, and who represent your beliefs. It also means accepting that your opinions will not be reflected always in decisions made. That is the nature of democracy, for political representatives to find workable solutions that meet as many of the needs of the many without sacrificing too many rights of the minority.

What is your alternative that would measurably improve the lives of all, without sacrificing the welfare of the weakest? What is your practical alternative to working through the existing political systems to reduce waste and corruption?

Can you provide a real world example of a better alternative to representative democracy as practiced in the US or Western Europe, with all their flaws, that does a measurably better job in ensuring that every single human being’s rights will be better protected, regardless of how poor they are, what ethnicity they have, or what beliefs they have (political, religious, etc.)?

Can you provide a single example of one country, where the government is better, or where the lack of a government makes it better? Russia, China, Haiti, Monaco, Singapore, where?
I'd like us to root out the corruption and get back to being the true representative democracy we were designed to be and once were. Not this bastardized illusion of democracy. A country where the rule of law applies to everyone, and congress doesn't write laws that apply to us and exempt themselves. I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I don't support support judges that find new 'rights' in the penumbra of the law.

I want a country where a couple worth less than a million dollars earning $400,000 dollars a year for 8 years CAN'T afford to buy a 15 million dollar mansion on Martha's Vineyard, less than 3 years out of office. At least when they can, can we be honest enough to call it corruption and a kick back and run them out on a rail instead of continuing to make them the darlings of the party? Nope.

We have strayed a long, long way from the romantic notions you wax about. Nothing wrong with the Democratic Republic that was established, I long to return to that form of government. The issue is we no longer practice that form of Government. We used to be the best of the best. Now we're simply the best of the worst. Our Government has become worse than the mob. Nancy d'Alesandro's father would be so proud of his little girl.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
See, now I’m thinking when you say right vs wrong, you really just mean conservative vs liberal where the conservative POV is always right. We haven’t discussed a single topic yet where you side with liberals. Anyway, did you know that capital punishment is pure evil ? The only true judge and executioner is God. Men can play judge and jury all they want and lock up people, even innocent ones, to take them out of society. However, it is never, and I mean never , morally OK to kill someone. Never. It’s a commandment. Do you think there are exceptions?

If God intended there to be, He would have stated so. Did you know that families of victims who have watched executions feel nothing but emptiness afterwards? What does it do? It doesn’t bring back their loved one, and the one who committed the crime is no longer suffering in this world. Do you think everyone executed by man goes to Hell? Who are you to say? You aren’t the Judge.
God is the judge who will determine where we will spend eternity. He will judge us based on our relationship with His son, Jesus. In the original Hebrew, the commandment is 'Thou shall not murder' although most English translations erroneously translate murder as kill. I guess it has a better ring to it.

Capital punishment is not murder. Neither is killing in self defense, nor is defending one's country or community in a time of war. God even gives us a number of sins where capital punishment was the prescribed punishment. By stoning no less. For far less than what we deem eligible for capital punishment today. Adultery anyone?

So you're pretty much wrong. Factually wrong. There is nothing morally wrong with capital punishment, the commandment and sin is murder, something entirely different.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
God is the judge who will determine where we will spend eternity. He will judge us based on our relationship with His son, Jesus. In the original Hebrew, the commandment is 'Thou shall not murder' although most English translations erroneously translate murder as kill. I guess it has a better ring to it. Capital punishment is not murder. Neither is killing in self defense, nor is defending one's country or community in a time of war. God even gives us a number of sins where capital punishment was the prescribed punishment. By stoning no less. For far less than what we deem eligible for capital punishment today. Adultery anyone?

So you're pretty much wrong. Factually wrong. There is nothing morally wrong with capital punishment, the commandment and sin is murder, something entirely different.
Yes, murder, so in our perfect judicial system, everyone found guilty of their crime definitely 100% did it, right?

You also misunderstand the New Testament if you believe the laws of the Old Testament have any bearing on the new world after Jesus. Capital punishment is murder. It is not our duty to kill anyone. Lock them away from society? Yes. Life sentence? Absolutely. Grave crimes should receive severe punishment. But we do not have to kill anyone for punishment. Therefore, it is murder.

Edit: To further clarify, all life is precious. If you are defending yourself, but are cognizant enough of the situation to either maim your attacker or kill them, and you choose to kill them, that is murder. War is not murder in a general sense as hardly anyone is cognizant enough of their situation to maim and disarm their opponent.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Yes, murder, so in our perfect judicial system, everyone found guilty of their crime definitely 100% did it, right?
Unfortunately no. But when we don't it's almost always a matter of malfeasance in the judicial system. So root out the corruption and move on with it. It is unconscionable that Charles Manson can be sentenced to death in the late 60's and die of old age on death row just a few years ago. Capital punishment should be swift, we should be sure, and it should apply equally to everyone in all cases. Sorry, rape and kill a child? The penalty is death. One quick review to make sure nothing wrong was done at trial and to make sure they are really guilty, then 6 weeks later, bye. None of this lifetime of appeal, last minute stay crap.

You also misunderstand the New Testament if you believe the laws of the Old Testament have any bearing on the new world after Jesus. Capital punishment is murder. It is not our duty to kill anyone. Lock them away from society? Yes. Life sentence? Absolutely. Grave crimes should receive severe punishment. But we do not have to kill anyone for punishment. Therefore, it is murder.
I'm clear I serve a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Whose Word changes not, who shows no favor or shadow of turning. I know I follow His son, Jesus who said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Christ gave us redemption through Him so that if we are guilty of sin, and who's not, we can find forgiveness and live with Him in eternity. For God so loved ...

All the rest is man's (your?) interpretation. No where in the New Testament does Capital Punishment become redefined as murder. There are examples where Jesus maybe implies that stoning should no longer be practiced for sexual sin, but at the same time He says if you've lusted after another, you've already committed the sexual sin in your heart so you're still guilty of the sin. And He also said, "Go and sin no more."

I see no where in the New Testament that Jesus Christ ever campaigned against the form of punishment that would ultimately allow Him to die on our behalf. After all, Jesus is the only truly innocent man ever to be put to death. Every one of the rest of us is worthy of the death He suffered on our behalf in the eyes of God. Jesus is the only man ever truly murdered by capital punishment. Anyone else has deserved it, maybe not for the crime they were convicted of or killed for, but deserving of it nonetheless.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately no. But when we don't it's almost always a matter of malfeasance in the judicial system. So root out the corruption and move on with it. It is unconscionable that Charles Manson can be sentenced to death in the late 60's and die of old age on death row just a few years ago. Capital punishment should be swift, we should be sure, and it should apply equally to everyone in all cases. Sorry, rape and kill a child? The penalty is death. One quick review to make sure nothing wrong was done at trial and to make sure they are really guilty, then 6 weeks later, bye. None of this lifetime of appeal, last minute stay crap.


I'm clear I serve a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Whose Word changes not, who shows no favor or shadow of turning. I know I follow His son, Jesus who said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Christ gave us redemption through Him so that if we are guilty of sin, and who's not, we can find forgiveness and live with Him in eternity. For God so loved ...

All the rest is man's (your?) interpretation. No where in the New Testament does Capital Punishment become redefined as murder. There are examples where Jesus maybe implies that stoning should no longer be practiced for sexual sin, but at the same time He says if you've lusted after another, you've already committed the sexual sin in your heart so you're still guilty of the sin. And He also said, "Go and sin no more."

I see no where in the New Testament that Jesus Christ ever campaigned against the form of punishment that would ultimately allow Him to die on our behalf. After all, Jesus is the only truly innocent man ever to be put to death. Every one of the rest of us is worthy of the death He suffered on our behalf in the eyes of God. Jesus is the only man ever truly murdered by capital punishment. Anyone else has deserved it, maybe not for the crime they were convicted of or killed for, but deserving of it nonetheless.
You are blind by your own thirst for vengeance. Jesus said “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” He was not talking about one particular crime. He was talking about everything. It was through Jesus’ execution that blood sacrifices became a thing of the past, so your thinking that nothing was to change since Jesus is also wrong. Jesus gave us two more commandments that are greater than the other 10.

If you are not 100% beyond shadow of a doubt that someone guilty of a crime (hint: this is impossible), then it is murder. Sorry, you are wrong about this. Just as you said, there is only right and wrong, good and evil. If only one innocent man dies at the hand of men for punishment, this punishment is evil. We already know several innocent men who have died because of flawed judicial findings. We are human and we are flawed, there is absolutely no justification that we should put anyone to death for a crime.

Edit: I also find it interesting that you are pro-life for the unborn, yet pro-death for the living.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Believe what you want, I’ll side with science.

Just curious though, what is your stance on capital punishment?
Science doesn’t support global warming as being man made. It supports that global warming is happening


You are blind by your own thirst for vengeance. Jesus said “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” He was not talking about one particular crime. He was talking about everything.
You’re ignoring context

The law the people brought up regarding stoning required both the woman and the man to be stoned. They let the man go free and brought only the woman. Those people weren’t looking for justice. If they wanted what was right they wouldn’t of only brought the woman. That’s the point Jesus was making
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
You’re ignoring context

The law the people brought up regarding stoning required both the woman and the man to be stoned. They let the man go free and brought only the woman. Those people weren’t looking for justice. If they wanted what was right they wouldn’t of only brought the woman. That’s the point Jesus was making
No, it isn’t. Nothing Jesus said had anything to do with one person being stoned vs two. It was about the act of stoning itself for crime that no one else was innocent of.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Science doesn’t support global warming as being man made. It supports that global warming is happening
Depends on who you ask. This is still a hotly debated topic whether humans have any effect on climate change. Global warming is a misnomer. There’s a lot of data proving that the weather has dramatically shifted in the last 100 years more than it ever has in the last million
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
No, it isn’t. Nothing Jesus said had anything to do with one person being stoned vs two. It was about the act of stoning itself for crime that no one else was innocent of.
I didn’t say it was about how many should be stoned, I was pointing out it revealed their heart because they were inconsistent with their use of it. If they wanted justice in the form of the law Moses gave they would have brought both of them.

The bible was pretty clear that the reason they brought her to him was to trap Jesus. He addressed the heart issue because of why they brought her to him. They were hypocrites. It was never about stoning that was just the pretence the Pharisees used to cover up their motives

Remember Jesus said to remove the plank out of our own eye before we remove the speck of dust from our brothers eye. This was saying the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I didn’t say it was about how many should be stoned, I was pointing out it revealed their heart because they were inconsistent with their use of it. If they wanted justice in the form of the law Moses gave they would have brought both of them.

The bible was pretty clear that the reason they brought her to him was to trap Jesus. He addressed the heart issue because of why they brought her to him. They were hypocrites. It was never about stoning that was just the pretence the Pharisees used to cover up their motives

Remember Jesus said to remove the plank out of our own eye before we remove the speck of dust from our brothers eye. This was saying the exact same thing.
Are you using this to validate capital punishment? It seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was saying to judge yourself before you judge others.
 

DeletedUser

God even gives us a number of sins where capital punishment was the prescribed punishment.
No, He didn't. He gave those commandments to the Israelites. We're not the Israelites.
I want a country where a couple worth less than a million dollars earning $400,000 dollars a year for 8 years CAN'T afford to buy a 15 million dollar mansion on Martha's Vineyard, less than 3 years out of office. At least when they can, can we be honest enough to call it corruption and a kick back and run them out on a rail instead of continuing to make them the darlings of the party?
Are you serious? Your misstatement of facts is amazing. Are you really so misinformed that you think the Presidential salary is all they've earned since 2008? Just for an example, Michelle Obama had a book published last year that has sold 10 million copies.
 

DeletedUser36572

Do you not believe the climate is worsening? There’s a lot of scientific data proving that storms are getting more catastrophic, the weather is getting hotter year round, and at the current rate, we’ll all be dead in the next 100 years?

Thanks for setting the end of times 100 years out ... Most folks short shoot the termination date and look like fools.
 

DeletedUser36572

Personal responsibly is intimately and inextricably bound to social obligations. Unless you want to live a monastic life, and reject all the obligations and privileges that comes from living in a society, you have a personal obligation to respect social obligations, even as you work to change them.

I get what you and others see in the value of coercing others into a civil society structured to meet your desires.

But ... You are ultimately and absolutely incorrect in believing I have any obligation to meet your desires.

I personally don’t give a rat’s rear what you want ... Furthermore trying to tell me what I am required to do in order to keep you happy, or avoid your wrath ... Is never going to help you get any cooperation from me (unless of course the cooperation you get stems from the fact you benefit from what it is i was going to do with or without you anyway).
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
There’s a lot of data proving that the weather has dramatically shifted in the last 100 years more than it ever has in the last million
Again. Factually incorrect. Look up the climate in Greenland circa Erik the Red, look up the Little Ice Age, and the Maunder Minimum. Both well within the last million years, both well outside the range of any climate changes we see today. Both completely NOT man made. The climate changes, humans adapt.
 

DeletedUser36572

Les Moonves, Harvey Wienstein, BIll Clinton, Anthony Wiener, Jeffrey Epstein ... as I said, dirt bags on both sides of the false D/R paradigm. No Left/Right, no Dems/Reps, no Lib/Con, there's Right/Wrong, Good/Evil. They can hide behind whatever label they want but evil men do evil deeds and with them there is no compromise.

All major business leaders and politicians are sociopaths to one degree or another.

They have chosen not to be “sheep”, possess the ambition to compete against others, and succeed. How well they manage that, and the consequences ... Combined with how well they integrate their desired outcome into a result the masses can accept and support ... Is what determines their longevity.
 

DeletedUser

Again. Factually incorrect. Look up the climate in Greenland circa Erik the Red, look up the Little Ice Age, and the Maunder Minimum. Both well within the last million years, both well outside the range of any climate changes we see today. Both completely NOT man made. The climate changes, humans adapt.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.""
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Top