Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, why doesn't freedom include the freedom to destroy one's self?

Good question Monty...

It falls to the immutable principle that one's life is an endowment form one's Creator; a gift, which is provided to you, without your having any say... you've been given that life from an authority which you've no means to contest; thus you've no authority to reject it; the life is rightfully yours; but that right comes with the responsibility to DEFEND IT... to the extent of one's means.

And by that, do you really mean kill one's self? I ask because depending on the standards and morals used to judge, people could be said to destroy themselves on plenty of occasions (spiritually, morally, financially, etc.).

Indeed... and in every instance, such is a result of errors in judgment. Wouldn't you agree?

I also didn't see matt say anything about improvement through the sexualization of children.

You're right, and I didn't say that Matt HAD 'said' so... I said that Matt's postion, wherein he touts that the culture has been improved; necessarily requires that where the culture has during the relevant period been sexualized; that the conclusion advanced by Matt, cannot escape that such is a function of that 'improvement'... and where such is the case, there is no means to conclude an improvement in the culture; as such establishes in indisputable terms, a DECLINE in the culture... and, as I pointed out, clultures in decline are not rising... thus not improving.

 

[mattskramer]

PI, why doesn't freedom include the freedom to destroy one's self?

Good question Monty...

It falls to the immutable principle that one's life is an endowment form one's Creator; a gift, which is provided to you, without your having any say... you've been given that life from an authority which you've no means to contest; thus you've no authority to reject it; the life is rightfully yours; but that right comes with the responsibility to DEFEND IT... to the extent of one's means.

And by that, do you really mean kill one's self? I ask because depending on the standards and morals used to judge, people could be said to destroy themselves on plenty of occasions (spiritually, morally, financially, etc.).

Indeed... and in every instance, such is a result of errors in judgment. Wouldn't you agree?

I also didn't see matt say anything about improvement through the sexualization of children.

You're right, and I didn't say that Matt HAD 'said' so... I said that Matt's postion, wherein he touts that the culture has been improved; necessarily requires that where the culture has during the relevant period been sexualized; that the conclusion advanced by Matt, cannot escape that such is a function of that 'improvement'... and where such is the case, there is no means to conclude an improvement in the culture; as such establishes in indisputable terms, a DECLINE in the culture... and, as I pointed out, clultures in decline are not rising... thus not improving.

Where is your absolute and undeniable proof that there is such a creator? I see a body - my body - and I am in control of it and - provided that there is no accident - I am practically in control of when it ends. I have a straight-forward question for you and would like a yes-no answer. Under any circumstance at all, should a very elderly, pain-ridden and disease ridden individual be allowed to kill himself?

Finally, don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER SAID THAT CHILD SEXUALIZATION WAS AN IMPROVEMENT ON SOCIETY. I meant that over all, with all things considered, American society is better than it was generations ago. Consider the fact that Blacks are no longer slaves. Women are allowed to work outside of the house. They are allowed to run for public office. We have better relations with Native Americans. Women are allowed to vote. Consider the child labor laws. We no longer have what amounted to sweat shops. American society has advanced in so many ways. Yes. There are some negative things. The sexualization of children is one of them. It is one bad egg in a basket of good eggs.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, why doesn't freedom include the freedom to destroy one's self?

Good question Monty...

It falls to the immutable principle that one's life is an endowment from one's Creator; a gift, which is provided to you, without your having any say... you've been given that life from an authority which you've no means to contest; thus you've no authority to reject it; the life is rightfully yours; but that right comes with the responsibility to DEFEND IT... to the extent of one's means.



Indeed... and in every instance, such is a result of errors in judgment. Wouldn't you agree?

I also didn't see matt say anything about improvement through the sexualization of children.

You're right, and I didn't say that Matt HAD 'said' so... I said that Matt's postion, wherein he touts that the culture has been improved; necessarily requires that where the culture has, during the relevant period, sexualized children; that the conclusion advanced by Matt, cannot escape that such is a function of that 'improvement'... and where such is the case, there is no means to conclude an improvement in the culture; as such establishes in indisputable terms, a DECLINE in the culture... and, as I pointed out, clultures in decline are not rising... thus not improving.

Where is your absolute and undeniable proof that there is such a creator?

In the Creation...

I see a body - my body - and I am in control of it and - provided that there is no accident - I am practically in control of when it ends.

Are you? I seriously doubt that Matt, as such would require that you're the Creator; and frankly, I've read your work and it's simply not 'Creator Material'...

All you can control Matt, is the reaction to that which enters your mind... you can pursue those thoughts or you cah reject them... you can entertain what comes to your consciousness or you can overtly alter those thoughts to comport with your character; to maintain the standards to which you hold yourself.

You're no more in charge of your lifespan than you are in charge of gravity. You simply prefer to pursue the illusion of such... as your tendency, as indicated by your writing, is to succumb to evil.

This illustrated plainly in the implication designed into your question regarding the existance of the Creator... What you're saying is, that there is no evidence of such a Creator; yet you testified in unambiguous terms, that you see and are indisputably aware of the Creation... thus the immutable evidence of the Creator... you simply feel that such evidence doesn't exist...

To which my customary response is: Go figure. But, the truth is, that's about all ya have left isn't it Matt? The Existance of the Creator represents what? It represents Authority and that authority precludes the means to sustain the rationalization you're pushing... doesn't it Matt?

And THAT kids, is really what this entire issue boils down to... Where there are immutable principles... and where those principles are recognized as resting on the incontestable authority of a Creator, the secular left is screwed.

Of course, they'll return as they have thousands of times in hundreds of discussions to demand that life on earth is merely a function of biological happenstance; which sounds GREAT on the surface... It takes the Creator out of the Equation... thus no immutable, incontestable authority exists... they then quickly run to establish that 'the existance of a Creator is not essential element of civilization...' that one doesn't need to be religious, to be moral...

Well OK... So where one seeks to test THAT... and test their willingness to embrace the purely biological aspects of human life... Where one demonstrates the IMPERATIVE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE HUMAN BIOLOGY... that such establishes by default a MORAL IMPERATIVE to sustain the human biology... What has the consistent reaction been? They've rejected THAT as they did when it was a function of the CREATOR... So reason is served that the problem is not the existance of an ethereal CREATOR... it's NOT, as they otherwise insist, the notion of a super-natural being holding sway over their existance...

It's the MORALITY, STUPID!

Even when that morality is established through the simple happenstance of biological evolution of the species... the notion of MORALITY itself, simply cramps their style...

Thus what we're witnessing is little more than the breying of the child... without regard to the age of the respective individual... it's the childish notion that 'its just not FAIR...' that somehow... through ANY-"HOW" they must be allowed to do whatever they want... as long as two or more of them can declare that what they want is CONSENSUAL... THAT THEY'VE AGREED THAT IT's OK, to do it themselves or to each other... that the REST OF US MUST ACCEPT IT... and why? Because ITS NOT FAIR ... if we do not; and this WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GIVEN PRINCIPLE. Even when EVERYONE is held to that standard, without regard to their individual 'special circumstances'... ITS NOT FAIR that THEY CAN'T DO IT... because after all... THEY WANT TO! And thus, the argument that "RELIGION" and the inherent morality within Religion that is the problem... even when religion is stripped from the equation, they reject ANY SENSE of ANY RULE or PRICIPLE which refutes their hedonistic, debaucherous childish desires...

They can't explain why it's PERFECTLY FAIR for THEM to decide what WE MUST ACCEPT... and that the inverse (that they must accept what we decide) is NOT FAIR... (thus the ever-present flaw in the ideological left's feelings on 'fairness as a standard of civilization....) They just 'KNOW' that it's not... and no... there's no basis in reasoning to sustain such; it just "IS"...

And there in lies the rub of it all... The want to be in charge of the Universe, kids. They want The Creators job. And it's just no more complex than that...

It's not fair...

 

[mattskramer]

Good question Monty...

It falls to the immutable principle that one's life is an endowment from one's Creator; a gift, which is provided to you, without your having any say... you've been given that life from an authority which you've no means to contest; thus you've no authority to reject it; the life is rightfully yours; but that right comes with the responsibility to DEFEND IT... to the extent of one's means.



Indeed... and in every instance, such is a result of errors in judgment. Wouldn't you agree?



You're right, and I didn't say that Matt HAD 'said' so... I said that Matt's postion, wherein he touts that the culture has been improved; necessarily requires that where the culture has, during the relevant period, sexualized children; that the conclusion advanced by Matt, cannot escape that such is a function of that 'improvement'... and where such is the case, there is no means to conclude an improvement in the culture; as such establishes in indisputable terms, a DECLINE in the culture... and, as I pointed out, clultures in decline are not rising... thus not improving.

Where is your absolute and undeniable proof that there is such a creator?

In the Creation...

I see a body - my body - and I am in control of it and - provided that there is no accident - I am practically in control of when it ends.

Are you? I seriously doubt that Matt, as such would require that you're the Creator; and frankly, I've read your work and it's simply not 'Creator Material'...

All you can control Matt, is the reaction to that which enters your mind... you can pursue those thoughts or you cah reject them... you can entertain what comes to your consciousness or you can overtly alter those thoughts to comport with your character; to maintain the standards to which you hold yourself.

You're no more in charge of your lifespan than you are in charge of gravity. You simply prefer to pursue the illusion of such... as your tendency, as indicated by your writing, is to succumb to evil.

This illustrated plainly in the implication designed into your question regarding the existance of the Creator... What you're saying is, that there is no evidence of such a Creator; yet you testified in unambiguous terms, that you see and are indisputably aware of the Creation... thus the immutable evidence of the Creator... you simply feel that such evidence doesn't exist...

To which my customary response is: Go figure. But, the truth is, that's about all ya have left isn't it Matt? The Existance of the Creator represents what? It represents Authority and that authority precludes the means to sustain the rationalization you're pushing... doesn't it Matt?

And THAT kids, is really what this entire issue boils down to... Where there are immutable principles... and where those principles are recognized as resting on the incontestable authority of a Creator, the secular left is screwed.

Of course, they'll return as they have thousands of times in hundreds of discussions to demand that life on earth is merely a function of biological happenstance; which sounds GREAT on the surface... It takes the Creator out of the Equation... thus no immutable, incontestable authority exists... they then quickly run to establish that 'the existance of a Creator is not essential element of civilization...' that one doesn't need to be religious, to be moral...

Well OK... So where one seeks to test THAT... and test their willingness to embrace the purely biological aspects of human life... Where one demonstrates the IMPERATIVE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE HUMAN BIOLOGY... that such establishes by default a MORAL IMPERATIVE to sustain the human biology... What has the consistent reaction been? They've rejected THAT as they did when it was a function of the CREATOR... So reason is served that the problem is not the existance of an ethereal CREATOR... it's NOT, as they otherwise insist, the notion of a super-natural being holding sway over their existance...

It's the MORALITY, STUPID!

Even when that morality is established through the simple happenstance of biological evolution of the species... the notion of MORALITY itself, simply cramps their style...

Thus what we're witnessing is little more than the breying of the child... without regard to the age of the respective individual... it's the childish notion that 'its just not FAIR...' that somehow... through ANY-"HOW" they must be allowed to do whatever they want... as long as two or more of them can declare that what they want is CONSENSUAL... THAT THEY'VE AGREED THAT IT's OK, to do it themselves or to each other... that the REST OF US MUST ACCEPT IT... and why? Because ITS NOT FAIR ... if we do not; and this WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GIVEN PRINCIPLE. Even when EVERYONE is held to that standard, without regard to their individual 'special circumstances'... ITS NOT FAIR that THEY CAN'T DO IT... because after all... THEY WANT TO! And thus, the argument that "RELIGION" and the inherent morality within Religion that is the problem... even when religion is stripped from the equation, they reject ANY SENSE of ANY RULE or PRICIPLE which refutes their hedonistic, debaucherous childish desires...

They can't explain why it's PERFECTLY FAIR for THEM to decide what WE MUST ACCEPT... and that the inverse (that they must accept what we decide) is NOT FAIR... (thus the ever-present flaw in the ideological left's feelings on 'fairness as a standard of civilization....) They just 'KNOW' that it's not... and no... there's no basis in reasoning to sustain such; it just "IS"...

And there in lies the rub of it all... The want to be in charge of the Universe, kids. They want The Creators job. And it's just no more complex than that...

It's not fair...

That is utter nonsense. I decide things for myself – not only my thoughts but also my actions. I can choose to stand up now. I can choose to sit down now. I can choose to live very cautiously and increase the odds of my living a long time. I can choose to buy a gun and shoot myself in the head tomorrow. For the most part, I am uncontrolled of how long I live. That things exist is no proof that there is or was a supreme being that created everything. There is the theory that nature (with a lower-case “n”) created everything. I think that you have heard of the big bang and evolution. Through human intervention, modern medicine, genetic manipulation of what nature provided, etc. we have been able to extend life and improve lives. MAN (not nature and not some creator) is the most powerful force and decider in existence.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is utter nonsense. I decide things for myself – not only my thoughts but also my actions. I can choose to stand up now. I can choose to sit down now. I can choose to live very cautiously and increase the odds of my living a long time. I can choose to buy a gun and shoot myself in the head tomorrow. For the most part, I am uncontrolled of how long I live.

No Matt, all you can do is, at best, the means which end this facet of life comes to an end... and is the case with everyone of those choices, such comes with consequences... And THAT is the issue here. No one is saying, has said or is tending towards the suggestion that ya don't have choices... the point is choices come with consequences and the standards provide some guidance as to the experience of the species and which choices tend towards reducing the odds of the cultural being subjected to negative consequences...

That things exist is no proof that there is or was a supreme being that created everything.

Well actually, in reality... that things exist is indisputably evidence that they were created.

There is the theory that nature (with a lower-case “n&#8221 created everything.

That is reality, more than a theory... Matt; nature did create everything and she will continue to do so. That you need 'nature' to be happenstance operating in a vacuum of 'willy nilly whateverism...' is your thing and has no bearing on reality.

The fact is that nature, without regard to its origins or 'intelligence' maintains distinct laws and those laws sustained in immutable principle... and where those laws are violated, stark consequences are brought to bear on the violator immediately... those laws are equally enforced and that equitable enforcement is fair to the species on the whole.

You simply want to pretend that the laws don't exist, that the human experience which tested those laws; on which the reasoned and reasonable standards rest are arbitrary and unfair to those, such as yourself, who desire to operate outside of those laws.

Either way, Nature or nature... doesn't care what you choose... your choices will bring certain consequences and we're just telling you that we aren't prepared to allow you to bring those consequences down on us.

I think that you have heard of the big bang and evolution.

Yeah... seems like I've heard of those theories...

Through human intervention, modern medicine, genetic manipulation of what nature provided, etc. we have been able to extend life and improve lives.

Yes, modern medicine has improved human lives... And it's brought with that improvement, consequences... Hasn't it?

MAN (not nature and not some creator) is the most powerful force and decider in existence.

HEY! Congrats! Ya made the sig! And this with the PERFECT leftist post! Man, do you know how long I've waited for one of you people to get around to just admitting THAT?

I can't TELL ya how much I appreciate it.

Now to the board and the objective third party who comes along to read this:

This statement:

MAN (not nature and not some creator) is the most powerful force and decider in existence.

expresses the full scope of the problem with the ideological left.

In this one sentence, Matt here has explained in TOTAL, the reason why the ideological left stands antithetical to the principles of freedom and those on which the US itself; the principles on which AMERICA rests.

This statement precludes ANY means for this member or those of her ideological stripe to recognize unalienable human rights; thus she does not; she cannot respect the principles which provide for the freedom sustaining rights which she demands; and thus she has no means to comprehend the responsibilities inherent in thos liberty sustaining rights... thus her unreasonable demands that she be allowed to do whatever she 'wants'...

These people are the problem... across the board and by that I mean that there are precious few problems suffered by the modern world which are not directly imparted upon us, through our having lent credence to their absurdities.

So we have a choice... continue to lend credence to them... and suffer the consequences of our poor choices or reject them, sustain the well reasoned cultural standards of morality and enjoy the fruits which have never failed to result from such.

The fact is that our lives are most fruitful where we are free to pursue the fulfillment of our lives... our liberty is born from our rights; those rights are vested through the immutable responsibilities inherent in those rights; and that life, those rights and the intrinsic responsibilities are endowed upon us from our Creator...

The idea that there is a means to sustain liberty through rights which we give ourselves, is a lie... its a deception born of specious reasoning, designed to undermine our resolve to maintain our responsibilities; thus failing to sustain our rights... subjecting ourselves to the inevitible consequences which come with violating Nature's laws.