Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:54:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1008 times
|
| |
|
|
Beaker wrote:
>
> Also sprach Matt Hanson:
> : You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not
> : have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other
> : than the part about your seemingly condoning discreet extramarital
> : affairs.
>
> I *do* condone discreet affairs ... I do not see what the possible
> relevance is to being capable of leading a country. But if your
> behavior gets you into trouble, and you try to subvert the legal system
> to avoid it, you should reap the whirlwind. Not for the sex, but for
> the attempted cover-up.
That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they
should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or
wherever)
But if you enjoy living in a country where one's word means nothing, I
guess that's your busines...
>
> : I know it's asking the impossible, but can't we have some degree of
> : regulated morality? (regulated by punishing non-conformance to some
> : degree) That to me, is one of the reasons our country is in so much
> : trouble... we have diminishing morality. And if any of you say I'm full
> : of it, I'm going to kick you in the head for being so ignorant.
>
> The problem with that, Matt, is whose morality do you choose? Baptists
> don't want us to drink alcohol, but a majority of Americans approve of
> alcohol. Muslims might agree with the Baptists on this point, but the
> women in this country, as well as many of the men, would reject Muslim
> traditions concerning the place of women in society. Conservative
> Christians might frown on affairs, but I don't think they would have
> wanted to put Jerry Falwell in jail. Legislating morality will always
> run into these sorts of problems.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of people would
have to honestly admit that having an extramarital affair is wrong. I
don't suggest regulating morality, but holding people to their
obligations... Get the idea?
>
> Personally, I dream of a system of government in which nothing is
> illegal that you can't get an overwhelming majority to agree to.
> Imagine if 9/10 congressmen had to agree in order to pass a law. Murder
> would still be illegal, as would rape, theft, kidnapping, etc. But we
> could stop harrassing pot smokers, forget the abortion issue entirely,
> and basically stop tearing ourselves up over issues that there will
> never be a clear consensus on. Imagine further if all laws had a
> ten-year life span, after which they would have to be reaffirmed or
> dropped off the books. I crave a government like this, although I
> recognize it would never happen because it would be a government without
> much power to do anything.
No offense to you, but thinking like this is the breakdown of morality I
was referring to...
I think the law should be set in stone, and enforced to the fullest
extent. No allowing every liberal thinker with his interpretation of
the way things should be to come along and ruin law and order... there
*must* be order. If we were to drop off laws every ten years, we might
see a shift in morality every ten years that started to look like a ski
slope...
Our constitution has become our curse. I can't see one thing that you
wrote that isn't, if most people weren't too blind to see it, either
unethical, or just down-right disgusting. Forgive my opinion, but I
think it was the right to *free* speech that tied the noose... to me,
when something starts to harm society or the reputation, or even
personal feelings of another, (not so much those of high strung people)
it's time to put the foot down. But it's been allowed to go on, and
even been protected, to the point that people think that anything is OK,
as long as you put it in the right perspective.
But you have only prompted this retort by your last paragraph... those
are new subjects to open, and I will only follow the lead. I don't want
to get started.
--
=======================================================================
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?"
- Dorothy (from The Wizard of OZ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "NO SPAM" when replying.
ICQ #11674715
=======================================================================
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Also sprach Matt Hanson: : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or : wherever) Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Also sprach Matt Hanson: : You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not : have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other : than the part about your seemingly condoning discreet extramarital : (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
