lethalninja said:

---

Should adultery (specifically, someone that is married having sex with someone they're not married to) be illegal? I don't think it should be, but I asked one of my friends and he said he wouldn't be opposed to it being illegal, although he didn't know what the punishment should be. What are your thoughts?

---

No

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

Characterizing it as "my feelings got hurt" is pathetic.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

This is a good way to ensure that people don't get married and just shack up instead...

---

It's a good way to ensure the only people who get married are those doing it for religious purposes. I don't care what atheists or agnostics do, they aren't really married anyway, they merely have a legal contract for tax purposes.

---

You'll get that.

Don't complain when very few people get married though. Since even religious people may be hesitant with jail on the line.

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

This is a good way to ensure that people don't get married and just shack up instead...

---

It's a good way to ensure the only people who get married are those doing it for religious purposes. I don't care what atheists or agnostics do, they aren't really married anyway, they merely have a legal contract for tax purposes.

---

You'll get that.

Don't complain when very few people get married though. Since even religious people may be hesitant with jail on the line.

---

I'm never going to sleep with anyone else so I don't see why this would scare any devout couple. If your so worried that you have no willpower and will commit adultery if given the chance then you have issues and should not get married, on that part I agree.

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

This is a good way to ensure that people don't get married and just shack up instead...

---

It's a good way to ensure the only people who get married are those doing it for religious purposes. I don't care what atheists or agnostics do, they aren't really married anyway, they merely have a legal contract for tax purposes.

---

You'll get that.

Don't complain when very few people get married though. Since even religious people may be hesitant with jail on the line.

---

I'm never going to sleep with anyone else so I don't see why this would scare any devout couple. If your so worried that you have no willpower and will commit adultery if given the chance then you have issues and should not get married, on that part I agree.

---

Oh boy let the religious minority rule! yay!!!!

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

No it shouldn't be illegal, but it would be socially condemned by a God fearing society.

---

Worked out horrible for David

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

And until around the 70s, we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Having a nation based on freedom is better overall, even though you have to occasionally deal with negatives like adultery.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

And until around the 70s, we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Having a nation based on freedom is better overall, even though you have to occasionally deal with negatives like adultery.

---

Amazing how a nation built around biblical morality became the greatest nation on earth while one based upon secular ideology is falling fast. Truly remarkable how that works.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

This is a good way to ensure that people don't get married and just shack up instead...

---

It's a good way to ensure the only people who get married are those doing it for religious purposes. I don't care what atheists or agnostics do, they aren't really married anyway, they merely have a legal contract for tax purposes.

---

You'll get that.

Don't complain when very few people get married though. Since even religious people may be hesitant with jail on the line.

---

I'm never going to sleep with anyone else so I don't see why this would scare any devout couple. If your so worried that you have no willpower and will commit adultery if given the chance then you have issues and should not get married, on that part I agree.

---

Again. If your plan is to ensure that very few people get married, you're driving in the right direction.

But, don't start complaining about religion being marginalized because fewer and fewer people want to engage in religion due to the punitive nature of it.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

And until around the 70s, we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Having a nation based on freedom is better overall, even though you have to occasionally deal with negatives like adultery.

---

Amazing how a nation built around biblical morality became the greatest nation on earth while one based upon secular ideology is falling fast. Truly remarkable how that works.

---

Just because many of the Founding Fathers were religious does not mean the nation was not built around biblical morality. The words "bible", "Jesus", "God", etc. to not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Freedom is what made our nation great. Not that many states banned sodomy. Iran bans sodomy too, and they are far from great.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

And this is what the founding fathers understood..

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Well, as long as you choose MY religion as the starting point for your principles...

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Who is everybody? Is another question you cannot arrive at an answer for using your methodology. Are our offspring included before they're born? Why? Should slaves be included as part of "everybody"? Why?

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

Interracial marriage was illegal until the late 60s. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Who is everybody? Is another question you cannot arrive at an answer for using your methodology. Are our offspring included before they're born? Why? Should slaves be included as part of "everybody"? Why?

---

Well, why don't we start with "you shouldn't have slaves"...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

People disagree on rights because most people are not educated on them. They think rights are merely "really important entitlements" (like you apparently do).

And I assume the truths you are referring to are things like the 10 commandments, the golden rule, and whatnot? Because us Christians are merely "pretty damned sure" that those are truth. There is no way for us to know for sure (possibly until we die... and then it's too late for government purposes).

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

---

His conclusion is correct. That's all. You're creating rights out of thin air. Where does the right to life come from? How do you know it's not okay to take a human life? Why is it totally fine to kill an animal and eat it?

There is hardly any tax benefit anymore for high earners. I thought two kids would be a tax benefit haha, no.