Why men won't marry you
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
AnnaBenedetti et al. won't be happy with you.
kmo is my friend, and he's a good man. He knows he doesn't have to agree with me and he knows I don't expect it as some kind of price of friendship. Have your conversation with him Trad, it won't change a thing in my friendship with him.
No. It's what is, not how we justify it. An Islamic state believes its laws are grounded in the absolute. We believe that there are self evident truths and rights, derived from an unnamed Creator, that we're born with. None of us can objectively demonstrate the truth of our propositions.
You don't mean that. You mean if I loose my hold on a claim of absolute truth I have no more right than the next fellow. Of course at that point I have as much right as any fellow and no inherent obligation to honor the wishes of any other.
No, which is why you should either quote me or not speak for me. What I wrote was, "The punishment advanced is the least cruel infringement upon right that we can envision while still carrying the punitive weight of social/legal censure." I'm explaining something to you. I'm not originating it.
Our law has boundaries for what can be done punishing in the name of the state and that it doesn't adopt an eye for an eye as the operating principle. We use means aimed at reformation and reflection, as well as punishment in the degree of impairment of rights and absent state sanctioned torture. If that disappoints our sense of justice then I'd suggest you examine the why of it.
You're entitled. It's a long argument with a lot of facets. It isn't, however, more than tangential to my point and it deserves more than a sidebar.
No one sufficiently trained in a lethal action will tell you that he can with any degree of certainty, in an adrenaline fueled situation, control his biological response sufficiently to accomplish a less than lethal response with any degree of certainty. He will more often endanger himself in the attempt. He isn't required to risk his safety on the chance of saving the life of someone he believes means him lethal harm.
It's a prima facie case that someone wronged should not be judge and jury. I'm more concerned with the operating principle than whether or not you can fashion a particular hypothetical to meet your ends.
.
It's only important that I speak the truth to you as best I understand it. What you do with it or how you value it is your business.
Do you realize what the mitigation actually was? An aberrant mental state. It's not a stamp of approval on the behavior.
There's a world of difference between recognizing that in a moment a man or woman may be overwhelmed and act in an unpremeditated rage, for which they will receive a reduced sentence of incarceration, and sustaining the notion that the still illegal and punishable action is a good idea.
The law does what it can, where it can, to put the victim in the position he should have found himself but for the action of the offender and to compensate the victim for damages while punishing the criminal.
I'm not concerned or responsible for your ears. My answer was plain enough. Embellish in any way that makes you feel better, but you still don't actually speak for me.
Okay.
Rather, sex isn't intrinsically evil. Rape is. Beating someone isn't intrinsically evil. Battery is.
No idea what you mean by that.
Not really. The modern notion of right is mostly about including the woman, though men have been forbidden to act certain ways toward their wives in antiquity and Christianity has some fairly strong things to say about how we are to behave. Ways inconsistent with berating and degrading and treating a wife as property.
Beyond that a big helping of "And?" Antibiotics are new. What, you want leeches?
lain:Well if Kant said it...then Kant is proof that intelligent men, even brilliant men can be limited by the bias of their age and culture.
So you're only partially corrupted or partially enlightened.
In the same sense a scientist is an advocate for gravity.
My personal system of justice and government has Christ at its head, literally. Absent that our imperfect form will do.
Last edited:
elohiym
Well-known member
It's implicit in the idea that the government is God's agent executing His judgement on earth. Mercy is part of His judgment. The sword of government can change over history in same way swords can be beaten into a plowshares. First you have a death penalty, then you don't. Like that.
elohiym
Well-known member
James 2:3 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
I fully grant the point. I simply don't think that this applies at the level of the State. I don't view the State and private individual as being "the same thing," so to speak.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Well, consider that God gave us a people's republic, so what we will, as individual Christians, can be codified if it can be framed in a publicly logical and acceptable way.
We no longer look to a king (other than God), we look at each other as co-reagents.
^
I notice that it's mainly women and feminists who make this argument time and time again. It's because the country's laws give women more privilege and promise over men, and they know it. We live in a society where women's issues are priority and men's are ignored and systematically thrown out.
If they were stripped of those special rights, they'd be telling a whole different story just like during first wave feminism
Oh great, we're on the subject of the most ridiculously misinterpreted passage in the New Testament
How about this one :think:
Acts 5:29
We ought to obey God rather than men.
View attachment 21471
elohiym
Well-known member
The State is God's agent and therefore must conform to God's will.
God's will, as demonstrated by Christ the King of Kings, is to show mercy.
ClimateSanity
New member
Two statements that are only partially true and ignore other issues that play a part.
Well, no. You're mistaken. The law gives them a thing mostly unknown before it, equality in right. Why that should bother you should actually bother you.
Complete nonsense, which is why when queried for particulars, as I did not that long ago, you don't provide them.
Which they don't have and you haven't remotely or particularly illustrated.
Speaking of stories...they'd be telling a whole different story just like during first wave feminism
Details, details.
When no facts are to be had, there are multitudes of stories to be told. :shocked:
elohiym
Well-known member
I've gone over the details ten times over on this site, I'm not going to explain or detail them again. Every time, they were systematically thrown out- domestic court bias for example.. it was met with basically 'deal with it, poor baby'. But on any subject on women, if I stated the same I would be outright called a misogynist.
Funny how you few actually are the people I talk about, and you haven't caught onto it yet :think:
Some people need the crap beat out of them, and be honest on this one, do you feel bad for a child rapist who got raped in prison?
Be honest again, and tell me if you think that happening is deserved deep within you?
He would certainly deserve it, in some broad sense of the word "deserve."
It would, however, be unjust on the part of the one who does it, nor is it permissible for the State to command rape as a punishment.
Imprisoning, beating (and, in general, subjection to physical suffering) and killing, on the other hand, is perfectly licit, at least in principle, when it comes to punishing criminals.