125
WARNING: Political topic ahead : Swingers Discussion 366921021
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsOpen ForumWARNING: Political topic ahead
TOPIC: WARNING: Political topic ahead
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 135   End
User Details are only visible to members.
I could agree to that if you believe the words "morals" and "morality" are so emotionally charged as to obscure meaning. Words can get that way, to be sure. But from my perspective the difference is hardly negligible.

By the way, I must say thanks to CuriousNew and Oldnutz (who really are on the opposite side of the aisle, ideologically, from me) for a very civil debate. I relish the opportunity to discuss these things without the unnecessary heat.

Dan

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
oldnutz,

Sorry if I wasn't very clear about my statement regarding the moral base of all laws. I would say that traffic and parking laws are expressions of morality, if you sift them down to their root - that life is valued (thus we design traffic laws to protect prople from accidents or to direct responsibility for their cause) and that property is to be protected (whether that property is a parking spot that belongs to someone, or to provide a legal basis for someone to receive remuneration if they damage someone else's property using their vehicle).

Think of a society whose morals did NOT contain a principle of personal property - they would not have to codify into law any form of protection or remuneration for the loss of property. Or imagine one whose morals held no value to human life - they would not need to enforce any sense of responsibility (liability) when someone was injured in a traffic accident.

So, all I'm saying is that if you sift out a law, it's telling you about the morality of a society. And in that way, ALL laws are a legislating of that society's morality (or at least the morality of those able to create and enforce laws).

And I am in agreement with you that laws failing to reflect the morality of the larger society (not just those able to make the laws) will fail in their purpose. People will find a way to get around them, and/or the magistrate will not faithfully enforce them.

Dan

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sorry for the delay. My Debate critique is: Kerry wins on presentation and posture. A draw on Substance. Bush repeated the same thing too many times. Kerry did not dispel the questions about his "filp flopping" and did not detail his plan. The format was too canned. I look forward to direct interaction and responses by the candidates. I don't think many voters who are undecided will make a decision based on this debate.

Morgantown PA
 
 
Username hidden
(1430 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
oldnutz> "Laws against speeding, theft, running red lights, rape, murder, assault, defamation, slander, holding illegal bingo games, are not laws intended to regulate morality, but are passed in order to regulate and order society in such a way as to control chaos."

I know this is a technicality, nut it's a "pet idea" of mine... Some laws are often ear-marked as "moral laws" because they are closely associated with the more *controversial* morals of the time. But I would argue that even the ones you list above are moral laws, because they reflect the morals of a people. Traffic laws represent a valuing of life and property - which is a very baseline element of morality. Preventing chaos is a moral issue. I recently read some of the writings of G.K.Chesterton and you can see how revolutionaries for anarchy were vying for their position during his time.

In other words, a regulated and ordered society is something you desire based on your moral foundation. Yes, it has pragmatic value, but I would argue that there are other moral foundations that would manifest themselves in different kinds of laws altogether.

Dan

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"How do you legislate morality anyway. Didn't work with prohibition, nor does it work with illegal drugs."

I've always been curious about the statement that you can't legislate morality. Laws are nothing more than the codification of morals. They represent the morality of a culture (or, in some cases, the morality of the ones able to pass the laws) and are just a segment of someone's morailty that is given teeth through enforcement (fines, imprisonment, etc.).

Now, I *would* agree that if a moral stance is ill-represented in a society (such as was the case with prohibition), codifying it into law will fail.

Dan

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(3271 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
4). It was these same missiles that brought about the demise if the USSR that the "idoit, cowboy,obstinate,stupid" RONALD REAGAN used to bankrupt there socialist society.And I pray to GOD up above that Kerry does not get elected because now more thanever we will need our NUCLEAR BUNKER BUSTING BOMBS THAT KERRY WOULD KILL.like what he has tried to do with all our defence weapons(well....pretty much alll) as Gell Miller pointed out and Kerry proved last night we would be defending ourselves with spitball against a nuclear weapon in terrorist hands.

Miramar FL
 
 
Username hidden
(2075 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
WELL SAID PERFECT 1)..This thing with Sadam has been going on since 1991 and 17 resolutions ago.The UN security council voted the punish Sadam if there was "material breach" .When that happenned they did nothing if it were not for GW then Sadam would still be in power and we would not be here debating this topic. 2.) I would not vote for anyone who would put the security of this nation to a "global test" in order to defend this the greatest country on mother earth. 3). It is the slamm business that is the backbone of this country and based on how these businesses are incooperated they would end up being the backbone of Kerry,s tax increase which would lead to fewer small business then and therefore less employment and growth etc. 4) to be continued.....

Miramar FL
 
 
Username hidden
(2075 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And old you still didnot tell me if you wouldnot have done the same thing for your kid as what you said Bush's dad did for him.......... I AM STILL WAITING........HOLDING MY BREATH.......CANT BREATHE...... GETTING DARK.......CANT FEEL ANYTHING.......OH MY GOSH I SEE A LIGHT.....AM I DEAD.......OH NO..... OLD KILLED MEEEE

Miramar FL
 
 
Username hidden
(2075 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
this whole intelligence discussion is quite funny....... as i said before this the same aurgument that liberals used when speaking about RONALD REGAN. NOW THEY SAY HE WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS EVER.Even John Fing Kerry said he wanted to be like him last night. I guess Kandc would have called him obstinate. As i have called for no one can put up any substansive aurgument as to why to vote FOR Kerry all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric. SOMEBODY OUTTHERE GIVE ME 5 REASONS TO VOTE FOR KERRY THESE 5 REASONS MUST NOT HACE ANY ANTI BUSH RHETORIC IN IT GO AHEAD I DARE YA!!!!!!!!!!

Miramar FL
 
 
Username hidden
(2075 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I for one do not worry about Kerry's intelligence, of the two choices he indicates much more intelligence than GWB.

Pottstown PA
 
 
Username hidden
(160 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 135   End
TOPIC: WARNING: Political topic ahead