Do you think beer/alcohol are "alright to use"? If not, do you think beer should be illegal?
toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Do you think beer/alcohol are "alright to use"? If not, do you think beer should be illegal?
Neither? I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative in the strictest sense either way, at least, not in the context of American politics. I vote almost exclusively out of respect for the life of the unborn and the institution of marriage. That said, I vote against abortion and gay "marriage."
I think that both the "conservative" and "liberal" groups fall far, far short of the Platonic ideal, though. Given the choice, I'd prefer the constitution of the Laws, at least, for the most part..
I think that both the "conservative" and "liberal" groups fall far, far short of the Platonic ideal, though. Given the choice, I'd prefer the constitution of the Laws, at least, for the most part..
Your argument assumes that the state is the primary source of authority, and that government is a competent arbiter of morals. As Madison noted, centuries of trying to make that so produced only suffering, discord, and horror.
This is seen in Marxism carried to its logical conclusion; that which is not prohibited, is required. The state as master of all.
Thank you for bringing up the Paul boys. Rand, unlike his father, isn't that well known to us YET. Other than being an admirer of the atheist, pro abortionist, adulterer, selfish and greedy Ayn Rand, I don't have much to say about him, other than I hope that he doesn't follow in the footsteps of his father. It's questionable if he is a member of the Libertarian Party like his father is. He's been quiet about it if he is, and wisely chooses a mainstream political party to pursue his political ambitions.
And now onto "daddy"
Yet for some reason Ron Paul thinks the murdering of the unborn is OK at the State level.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state:
- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
- has not acknowledged that human rights trump state's rights
- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
- claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
http://prolifeprofiles.com/paul
As shown in an earlier link, Ron Paul doesn't think homosexuality is a "sin". Let's see how his voting record reflects his ideology:
House Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers last night to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that has for decades allowed gays to serve in the military. The only caveat is they aren’t allowed to broadcast what they’re doing in their government-supplied bedrooms.
Five Republicans voted to join the radical gay lobby in pushing passage of Nancy Pelosi’s remaining priority item before the elections. Those five Republicans are: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
This vote was not about gays openly serving in our military. It never has been. The radical gay lobby seeks to force the military to allow their fellow travelers to serve openly as a means to achieve other elements of their radical agenda in the civilian world.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254
Regarding the Libertarian Party, a political party that Ron Paul ran for President on back in 1988. While he did support a good man in the last presidential election, he didn't cut his ties with the "if it feels gooood do it" party:
"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547
Ron Paul is a phony, plain and simple. What kind of "Christian" would suport a political party that spits in the face of God and His laws?
How about Paul quoting communist sympathizer Sinclair Lewis on national tv?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_patrio.html
(To keep the record straight, I'm no fan of Mike "Hucksterbee" either).
Or stating "I am uncomfortable talking about religion in public..."
http://www.christorchaos.com/ShowingLibertarianismsTrueBiases.html
What kind of Christian is ASHAMED about talking about his faith in public?
The author of the last article, Thomas A. Droleskey, said it best:
"Sin, Dr. Paul, is not a human "right." No one has the moral or civil "right" to sin. One has the physical ability or potentiality to choose to commit a sin. One has no "right" to commit a sin. The civil state has no authority founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to reaffirm people in their sins, no less to extol them as a "civil right" or to be indifferent to the harm that sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance do to the common good of society. Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the God-Man, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow. The Cross of the Divine Redeemer is the means of our liberation from the power of sin and eternal death. Each man and each nation should be proud to raise this standard of true liberty, indeed, the very foundation of civilization itself, as high as possible."
And now onto "daddy"
Yet for some reason Ron Paul thinks the murdering of the unborn is OK at the State level.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state:
- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
- has not acknowledged that human rights trump state's rights
- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
- claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
http://prolifeprofiles.com/paul
As shown in an earlier link, Ron Paul doesn't think homosexuality is a "sin". Let's see how his voting record reflects his ideology:
House Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers last night to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that has for decades allowed gays to serve in the military. The only caveat is they aren’t allowed to broadcast what they’re doing in their government-supplied bedrooms.
Five Republicans voted to join the radical gay lobby in pushing passage of Nancy Pelosi’s remaining priority item before the elections. Those five Republicans are: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
This vote was not about gays openly serving in our military. It never has been. The radical gay lobby seeks to force the military to allow their fellow travelers to serve openly as a means to achieve other elements of their radical agenda in the civilian world.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254
Regarding the Libertarian Party, a political party that Ron Paul ran for President on back in 1988. While he did support a good man in the last presidential election, he didn't cut his ties with the "if it feels gooood do it" party:
"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547
Ron Paul is a phony, plain and simple. What kind of "Christian" would suport a political party that spits in the face of God and His laws?
How about Paul quoting communist sympathizer Sinclair Lewis on national tv?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_patrio.html
(To keep the record straight, I'm no fan of Mike "Hucksterbee" either).
Or stating "I am uncomfortable talking about religion in public..."
http://www.christorchaos.com/ShowingLibertarianismsTrueBiases.html
What kind of Christian is ASHAMED about talking about his faith in public?
The author of the last article, Thomas A. Droleskey, said it best:
"Sin, Dr. Paul, is not a human "right." No one has the moral or civil "right" to sin. One has the physical ability or potentiality to choose to commit a sin. One has no "right" to commit a sin. The civil state has no authority founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to reaffirm people in their sins, no less to extol them as a "civil right" or to be indifferent to the harm that sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance do to the common good of society. Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the God-Man, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow. The Cross of the Divine Redeemer is the means of our liberation from the power of sin and eternal death. Each man and each nation should be proud to raise this standard of true liberty, indeed, the very foundation of civilization itself, as high as possible."
"Despite what some Christians teach, there is no prohibition in God’s Word against drinking alcoholic beverages. It is not a sin to drink beer, or even whiskey. There is, however, a clear prohibition against getting drunk."
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1033
Well and good. Just keep in mind that tobacco and alcohol kill far more people every year than all illegal drugs combined. Alcohol consumption is responsible for far more domestic violence than any other drug.
Alcohol and tobacco are legal. Oh, and there's nothing in the Bible against using tobacco, either. Does their legality mean that they are "alright to use" in your mind?
Per the article:
"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two."
"The unity of purpose of family, Church and civil government is to glorify God, by teaching, obeying and enforcing His word and law. Family, Church and civil government all are to do these things, but each is given a unique function or sphere of operation. This division of function is not historical, in the sense of historical dispensations in which one or the other of God's institutions is to dominate (the three were united in our first parents), but is rather a continuity of division of labor over time."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
Let me look in the Communist Manifesto (or any other of Marx's blathering) and see if he promotes Christianity.
Of course anyone with a lick of common sense knows that the more Christian principles a society applies to itself, the less force of government is needed. (It's called "self discipline").
No. You're saying that there are decisions of ethical/moral importance that are rightly and solely the province of the individual making them. A conservative should understand that notion.
I disagree with Newman on this, believing we all pay the freight for people who make the wrong decisions and so have a right to raise our hands in objection, but you shouldn't distort his conclusion.
So does sugar, if it's abused. Sodas, most fast food, the lack of exercise, smoking. Are you as outraged and where do you draw the line at legislative, government control and intrusion?
What nonsense. Where did he say that, in essence or otherwise?
You're another funny fellow, having the same governmental leaders. Else, bad beans and worse rhetoric.
Errant.
:e4e:
@ aSeattleconserv: I agree. Everything which is morally wrong should be illegal. Thus, we should start imprisoning wealthy people who don't spend the vast majority of their wealth on the poor, on businessmen who don't pay their workers enough to live a comfortable life, on business owners who exploit cheap labor in 3rd world countries, etc.
Bill Gates should be in prison. Right?
Summa Theologica II-II said:
Bill Gates should be in prison. Right?
I agree that alcohol abuse is a huge problem in our country. Keep in mind when Prohibition was overturned, we were predominately a "moral and religious people". No longer. Also keep in mind that recreational drugs are ILLEGAL. Open the flood gates by legalizing them and you'll see more misery, disease and death. A drug high is a lot different than alcohol intoxication.
In the past, we've had many laws that controlled alcohol abuse. Drunk in public laws, sale of liquor laws (many states still have them), drunk tanks, etc. Back then it was shameful to act like a fool when you were intoxicated. Many people think it's funny now.
Tobacco doesn't modify one's behavior like recreational drugs do. To my knowledge no one has ever beaten up his wife or children BECAUSE he was smoking a Marlboro cigarette. I'm not aware of any police officers stopping an erratic driver and asking the question: "Sir, have you by chance smoked a Camel cigarette recently?"
I never said it did. Whatever gave you that impression? That's what alcohol use/abuse does, not tobacco use/abuse.
However, tobacco use does cause the deaths of about 500,000 Americans a year, which is far more than all illegal drugs combined:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/tobacco/statisticssnapshot
Poverty does. Bill Gates is a criminal!
Riiiiiiight?
Not one of my favorite characters either:
There's so much to Bill Gates Jr.:
Atheist/agnostic, (whatever they're calling themselves this week)
http://thegreatrealization.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/worlds-largest-philanthropers-atheists/
Pro-abortionist, (also known as a "Global Health Strategist")
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppgnw/files/BGspeech.pdf
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/may/03050902.html
Investor in a hardcore homosexual publishing company.
http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/2008/10/bill-gates-invests-26-million-dollars.html
Traitorous sellout to the Chinese Communists who are notorious for human rights violations.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GF21Dh01.html
But I digress.
Like you, he worshiped government as a way of enforcing his particular ideology.
You guys are all alike in that regard.
You must be pretty young, if you buy that story. Used to be, the popular media had lots of "funny drunks." Notice that there aren't so many now, mostly because of a changing attitude about alcoholism and drunken driving.
I suspect all you have is disgust.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Oh no, Ron is Satan Himself"Oh NO!!!! Run for your lives!!!!
Because they are perverted and deviant.:dunce::duh:
How is this not common sense? Deviant and perverted behavior should not be legal.
Simple as that.
The effect such behavior has on society is detrimental to all, to the point that said behavior should not be allowed, let alone allowed to run rampant.
So does perverted and deviant behavior. It infringes on our right to be free from perversion and deviance.
And if anyone is stupid enough to think that it doesn't have an effect on others when it is kept behind closed doors, stop doing yourself such a disservice and do some research. The people who commit these acts are not islands, and it certainly effects them to the extent that they then effect everyone around them with the symptoms of their disease.
I'm not supporting subjective definitions, or relative morality. There are absolutes in this world, and they are as objective as they come. And nature itself speaks to the differences between natural and unnatural behavior.
There is no such thing as wrong for one person and right for another.
If you had a brain I wouldn't have had to answer.
How so?
Because of the effect on the public at large.
That's not the definition of deviance, moron.
Norms of society are not what define deviance and/or perversion.:nono:
And if you want to argue for progression, remember that cancer progresses too.
If you think that final sentence has any amount of truth to it you are quite the idiot.
There are four categories of things I see as sin that I also believe should be crimes; murder, theft, perjury and sexual immorality. It is true those can be broken down into sub categories, but not many.
I know people don't always like a question to be answered with another question, but I really want you to think these things through for yourself. So, what is the effect of fornication on society?
Skavau
New member
Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works.Lighthouse said:
Why should the state be in the business of declaring people's private choices as 'deviant' or 'perverted' and ban them based on that?
Why not? You haven't given any answer to this. Many 'deviant' and 'perverted' behaviour is nothing more than quirky, or completely harmless. Just like my listening to obscure music, or someone else's unknown fetish - why should the government be nullifying the right to privacy and imposing conformity?
You say, without giving any reason.
This is about as ridiculous as the imaginary right to be free from being offended. You are free to be independent from 'perversion' and 'deviance'. Do not associate with those who engage in it. Refuse to talk about it with practitioners of it. No-one is telling you that you must be involved in sexual 'deviance'.
Again, you say this without citation. People leading unhealthy lifestyles (diet-wise) also effects their health and effects them around other people. People having specific compulsive disorders can also affect how they behaviour around others. Does the government get involved and impose only one acceptable specific lifestyle determined to be the least-offensive, least-upsetting and least-effecting to everyone else? Is this the sort of liberty you really believe in?
Except you haven't bothered to back this up. You have just asserted it, and in doing so have also asserted the naturalistic fallacy. We do not derive and ought from an is and I'm fairly amused that you of all people would imply that we do.
Perhaps not. There is such a thing, however - as liberty and personal freedom. Concepts which apparently you don't believe in.
Totalitarianism is the direct control from the government as to what its citizens can and cannot do. It is the absolute nullification and disregard of personal liberty and individual rights whether in public, or in private. You actually seem to believe the state should be involved in the complete regulation and imposition of specific self-declared moral lifestyles towards its citizens. Nevermind liberty. Nevermind self-determination. You think the moral code you follow is more important.
You have more in common with the mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia than you do with any of the forefathers of the United States. And I would like to ask on this point (to probe your position further): What is your position on free-speech and censorship? I suspect to an extent you would insist upon it.
What effect(s)? Should we also ban unhealthy eating because of the consequences on public health?
I mean, you've set the standards now. The state should be directly involved in the fate of the citizens now - protecting them from themselves, right?
Insult noted and ignored. Takes a lot to make me cry.
And yes, it is the definition of deviance. It is to do with non-conformity. It is not explicitly sexual in nature. Just insulting me doesn't make your point stronger.
Yes, cancer does progress. However, we're not talking about progressive diseases. Just because I am progressive minded socially does not mean I support progressive diseases (the term 'progressive' is used to describe things in more than one way).
And yes, sir, they are. You probably think otherwise since you have your morality from an allegedly unchanging source - but pragmatically, for people who don't believe in God and the history of deviance - it describes abnormalities.
Okay.
Effects and results vary likely from nation to nation. Fornication itself (simply two consenting adults having sexual intercourse) is of no consequence and no-one else's business. Of course, one-night stands might be considered classless and unprotected sex as at worst, very dangerous and at best naive.
But nonetheless and with all of the problems in mind (which actually stem from other cultural things such as the nightclub culture), it would be far worse to prohibit people's liberties.
I should ask on this point to: Are you for the prohibitation then of nightclubs? And suggestive and 'immoral' forms of media (music, video games, movies)? Where does your non-interest in people's liberty begin and end?
Last edited:
- Status