Silian Rail said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

---

Your bombshell is that Christians do bad things?

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

---

Your bombshell is that Christians do bad things?

---

OK, let's try this.

China is largely ashiest. Yet they have morals upon which their laws are built.

Granted - their morals do not align all that well with the morals in the West - but they have them nonetheless. All without religion.

---

Quote:

---

The founder of Confucianism, Master Kong (K'ung, Confucius, 551-479 B.C.E.) did not intend to found a new religion, but to interpret and revive the unnamed religion of the Zhou (Chou) dynasty, under which many people thought the ancient system of religious rule was bankrupt; why couldn't the gods prevent the social upheavals? The burning issue of the day was: If it is not the ancestral and nature spirits, what then is the basis of a stable, unified, and enduring social order? The dominant view of the day, espoused by Realists and Legalists, was that strict law and statecraft were the bases of sound policy. Confucius, however, believed that the basis lay in Zhou religion, in its rituals (li). He interpreted these not as sacrifices asking for the blessings of the gods, but as ceremonies performed by human agents and embodying the civilized and cultured patterns of behavior developed through generations of human wisdom. They embodied, for him, the ethical core of Chinese society. Moreover, Confucius applied the term "ritual" to actions beyond the formal sacrifices and religious ceremonies to include social rituals: courtesies and accepted standards of behavior -- what we today call social mores. He saw these time-honored and traditional rituals as the basis of human civilization, and he felt that only a civilized society could have a stable, unified, and enduring social order.

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.

---

That reply makes 0 sense. Much like your argument. Liberals do that too when you try to force logic into their illogical reasoning.

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.

---

It's all they have. They cannot handle married men who are also fathers actually having a solid foundation of morals. It breaks their brains.

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

That was nationalism not atheism…

---

Communist nationalism? Are you drunk? Communism is anti-nationalism. Fascism is nationalistic. Communism teaches that people are united by class and not by nation, which is why their battle cry is "workers of the world unite".

---

Wait, what? Are you saying the Soviets weren't nationalistic? Wow.

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.

---

That reply makes 0 sense. Much like your argument. Liberals do that too when you try to force logic into their illogical reasoning.

---

There's no illogical reasoning here my friend, I'm asking why slavery was wrong given that it was codified in the Constitution and the law of the land. You said rights were given to you by the constitution and the state you live in.

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

---

Your bombshell is that Christians do bad things?

---

OK, let's try this.

China is largely ashiest. Yet they have morals upon which their laws are built.

Granted - their morals do not align all that well with the morals in the West - but they have them nonetheless. All without religion.

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.

---

That reply makes 0 sense. Much like your argument. Liberals do that too when you try to force logic into their illogical reasoning.

---

There's no illogical reasoning here my friend, I'm asking why slavery was wrong given that it was codified in the Constitution and the law of the land. You said rights were given to you by the constitution and the state you live in.

---

We literally just discussed this (in general terms). It's wrong because the people decided it was wrong and had the laws changed. Are you really this dense? I really don't get your point at all.

Also, I did not say "rights" were given to me by the constitution (although it does). I said the right to CHANGE those rights (and laws) was given to me by the constitution and the state I live in (in your words "political process"). And as you pointed out - exactly that has been done in not only the case of slavery, but of women's voting rights and numerous other examples.

---

Silian Rail said:

---

yes, you can probably divide it into Marxist-Leninist russia, and then Stalin purged them and transformed them into a National Bolshevist regime

---

Quote:

---

Latin Anerica's religiosity is a facade. There are more Catholic Dioceses in the US alone than in all of Latin America.

---

• United States of America - Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Detroit, Dubuque, Galveston-Houston, Hartford, Indianapolis, Kansas City in Kansas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Milwaukee, Mobile, Newark, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia (Latin), Portland in Oregon, Saint Louis, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Seattle, Washington, San Juan de Puerto Rico, United States Military Services
• Puerto Rico (U.S.) - San Juan de Puerto Rico

• Mexico - Acapulco, Antequera, Chihuahua, Durango, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Jalapa, Len, Mxico, Monterrey, Morelia, Puebla de los Angeles, San Luis Potos, Tlalnepantla, Tijuana, Tulancingo, Tuxtla Gutirrez, Yucatn
• Argentina - Baha Blanca, Buenos Aires, Crdoba, Corrientes, La Plata, Mendoza, Mercedes-Lujn, Paran, Resistencia, Rosario, Salta, San Juan de Cuyo, Santa Fe de la Vera Cruz, Tucumn
• Bolivia -Cochabamba, La Paz, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Sucre
• Brazil - Aparecida, Aracaju, Belm do Par, Belo Horizonte, Botucatu, Braslia, Campinas, Campo Grande, Cascavel, Cuiab, Curitiba, Diamantina, Feira de Santana, Florianpolis, Fortaleza, Goinia, Juiz de Fora, Londrina, Macei, Manaus, Mariana, Maring, Montes Claros, Natal, Niteri, Olinda e Recife, Palmas, Paraba, Passo Fundo, Pelotas, Porto Alegre, Porto Velho, Pouso Alegre, Ribeiro Preto, Santa Maria, So Lus do Maranho, So Paulo, So Salvador da Bahia, So Sebastio do Rio de Janeiro, Sorocaba, Teresina, Uberaba, Vitria, Vitria da Conquista
• Chile - Anto***asta, Concepcin, La Serena, Puerto Montt, Santiago de Chile
• Colombia - Barranquilla, Bogot, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cartagena, Ibagu, Manizales, Medelln, Nueva Pamplona, Popayn, Santa Fe de Antioqua, Tunja, Villavicencio
• Ecuador - Cuenca, Guayaquil, Portoviejo, Quito
• Paraguay - Asuncin
• Peru - Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cusco, Huancayo, Lima, Piura, Trujillo
• Uruguay - Montevideo
• Venezuela - Barquisimeto, Calabozo, Caracas Santiago de Venezuela, Ciudad Bolvar, Coro, Cuman, Maracaibo, Mrida, Valencia en Venezuela
• Antilles[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_archdioceses#endnote_Antilles][1][/url] - Castries, Fort-de-France, Kingston, Nassau, Port of Spain
• Costa Rica - San Jos de Costa Rica
• Cuba - Camagey, San Cristbal de la Habana, Santiago de Cuba
• Dominican Republic - Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo
• El Salvador - San Salvador
• Guatemala - Guatemala, Los Altos Quetzaltenango-Totonicapn
• Hati - Cap-Hatien, Port-au-Prince
• Honduras - Tegucigalpa
• Nicaragua - Managua
• Panama - Panam

Silian Rail said:

---

You're mistaking archdiocese and diocese

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

You're assuming people would be completely unethical without laws. I disagree. Ethical people are ethical Criminals are criminals. Laws merely define punishment for criminals.

If you think I'm not raping and murdering because of laws well that's just comical.

Admittedly speeding is minor by comparison. There are of course minor things that are more just trying to have an orderly and safe environment that are made "illegal". But I don't believe any gun law stops a criminal, murder does not stop a murderer, laws about rape do not stop rapes, etc. etc.

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.

---

That reply makes 0 sense. Much like your argument. Liberals do that too when you try to force logic into their illogical reasoning.

---

There's no illogical reasoning here my friend, I'm asking why slavery was wrong given that it was codified in the Constitution and the law of the land. You said rights were given to you by the constitution and the state you live in.

---

We literally just discussed this (in general terms). It's wrong because the people decided it was wrong and had the laws changed. Are you really this dense? I really don't get your point at all.

Also, I did not say "rights" were given to me by the constitution (although it does). I said the right to CHANGE those rights (and laws) was given to me by the constitution and the state I live in (in your words "political process"). And as you pointed out - exactly that has been done in not only the case of slavery, but of women's voting rights and numerous other examples.

---

That's great that's what I wanted you to say. So if people change their mind on it being wrong it ceases to be wrong, and we can have slavery again as long as they change the laws. All that matters is the whim of the people.

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

You're assuming people would be completely unethical without laws. I disagree. Ethical people are ethical Criminals are criminals. Laws merely define punishment for criminals.

If you think I'm not raping and murdering because of laws well that's just comical.

Admittedly speeding is minor by comparison. There are of course minor things that are more just trying to have an orderly and safe environment that are made "illegal". But I don't believe any gun law stops a criminal, murder does not stop a murderer, laws about rape do not stop rapes, etc. etc.

---

Let's take an easy example: child porn. If they legalized child porn tomorrow you don't think there would be companies profiting off of it? Why aren't they doing so now?

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

You're assuming people would be completely unethical without laws. I disagree. Ethical people are ethical Criminals are criminals. Laws merely define punishment for criminals.

If you think I'm not raping and murdering because of laws well that's just comical.

Admittedly speeding is minor by comparison. There are of course minor things that are more just trying to have an orderly and safe environment that are made "illegal". But I don't believe any gun law stops a criminal, murder does not stop a murderer, laws about rape do not stop rapes, etc. etc.

---

Let's take an easy example: child porn. If they legalized child porn tomorrow you don't think there would be companies profiting off of it? Why aren't they doing so now?

---

Aston04 said:

---

Can this thread be moved to the Religious board?

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce. I also think that you should not be allowed to marry at all unless you get a religious marriage. This would ensure all marriages are religious in nature and eliminate those who just want to get married for tax purposes.

if you don't have a religious marriage, why do you even care about faithfulness? You just have a civil union for tax purposes so who cares what your spouse does? Your marriage isn't valid in the eyes of the lord anyway.

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death. This topic has even been glorified in modern media and Hollywood and our politicians do it all of the time. It's an absolutely corruptive force that has no business in a civilized society.

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

OP started this thread, but can't reconcile the tough questions...

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

OP started this thread, but can't reconcile the tough questions...

---

One Louder said:

---

I have never cheated on my husband nor would I consider it but this is ludicrous. Better start building more jails!

---

Quote:

---

The reason why it's not the gotcha question you think it is......we have precedent in the late 20th century of adultery laws on the books which answer everyone one of the questions you've asked.

---