|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 21:39:46 GMT
Beginning in 1970 and continuing through most states "no fault" divorce laws were passed. That has changed the definition of marriage as much as same sex marriage did. That's because marriage already didn't mean anything anymore before same sex marriage happened along. Now all states except New York have no fault divorce laws, but doesn't mean much with interstate mobility. See above and that happens to be mismanage it. Something I wanted to get clear before I address religion here is that there are two groups, one that makes rules and one that unmakes them. Notice Terrapin Station said that people cannot live without rules and rules are going to just happen. I couldn't quite get him to fully admit that a group opposing the rules also just happens. We all need to consider that before I can proceed. Such a group exists and has successfully destroyed marriage. Quite much of government, whichever party you consider, is really about destroying the rules. After I get some more people to recognize this here I will then address the role of religion in these developments. It is government that gives people the ability to flit in and out of marriage like a fast food restaurant. You implied as much yourself. When I criticized Terrapin Station recently for not recognizing the gravity of marriage in his arguments about the age of consent for sex I was ridiculed by more than one (I suppose) board member for not getting it right. I would think you would have more to say on this topic especially when we get to where the rules originate, who or what challenges them, and so forth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 22:27:17 GMT
Beginning in 1970 and continuing through most states "no fault" divorce laws were passed. That has changed the definition of marriage as much as same sex marriage did. That's because marriage already didn't mean anything anymore before same sex marriage happened along. Now all states except New York have no fault divorce laws, but doesn't mean much with interstate mobility. None of which has any relation to people believing that there are "no rules". Indeed, no fault divorce laws are rules which pertain to marriage. No, it isn't. Managing a thing in a way that does not appeal to you personally is not mismanagement. And you should be clear before you continue that this is not the case. The only people who believe in abolishing rules are anarchists; there are very few of those in this world, and they very rarely get to actually control anything. There are, of course, people opposed to individual rules. But not to rules in general. And even those people usually want to reform rules rather than abolish them. It is considered and rejected, because it is not true. Blatant nonsense. Marriage has in no way been 'destroyed'. Again, pure fantasy. Well that's simple enough stuff. Rules originate with people, and are changed by people.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 22:45:36 GMT
Beginning in 1970 and continuing through most states "no fault" divorce laws were passed. That has changed the definition of marriage as much as same sex marriage did. That's because marriage already didn't mean anything anymore before same sex marriage happened along. Now all states except New York have no fault divorce laws, but doesn't mean much with interstate mobility. None of which has any relation to people believing that there are "no rules". Indeed, no fault divorce laws are rules which pertain to marriage. No, it isn't. Managing a thing in a way that does not appeal to you personally is not mismanagement. And you should be clear before you continue that this is not the case. The only people who believe in abolishing rules are anarchists; there are very few of those in this world, and they very rarely get to actually control anything. There are, of course, people opposed to individual rules. But not to rules in general. And even those people usually want to reform rules rather than abolish them. It is considered and rejected, because it is not true. Blatant nonsense. Marriage has in no way been 'destroyed'. Again, pure fantasy. Well that's simple enough stuff. Rules originate with people, and are changed by people. We can't both be right, and that's bad news for you. Attitudes about divorce and marriage have changed dramatically since the 50s. I doubt even you would argue that. Our difference seems to be whether anything meaningful survived. In the past divorce was a terrible thing because of the harm divorce does to children. Divorced people were stigmatized. When government stepped in and began "ensuing" children got everything they need, the stigma of divorce disappeared. Increasingly government takes more and more care of children. Some school districts not only provide nearly free lunches for students, but breakfast and supper as well. It simply isn't true anymore that people need to remain married for the physical well being of their children. I don't know why you would believe marriage can continue to mean anything in such conditions. I remember a poster on the old board who started a topic, "Child support payments are law mandated, right?" I tried to make people understand that government cannot fix everything, there is no monetary value on good parenting.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 22:55:45 GMT
TL:DR WTF is a 'Christian Atheist'? Brevity might be the soul of wit, but even you would think there should be more. Should you one day wonder what the difference is between a "Christian Atheist" and a "Military Atheist" the answer is not very much. It is somewhat like the difference between Republicans and Democrats. H. Ross Perot famously said decades ago that "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties." That is still true today, but understanding it requires much reading.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 14, 2018 23:01:28 GMT
TL:DR WTF is a 'Christian Atheist'? Brevity might be the soul of wit, but even you would think there should be more. Should you one day wonder what the difference is between a "Christian Atheist" and a "Military Atheist" the answer is not very much. It is somewhat like the difference between Republicans and Democrats. H. Ross Perot famously said decades ago that "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties." That is still true today, but understanding it requires much reading. Well you sure didn't answer my question with much! I think you owe me a better explanation since you have accused me of being one, and I have NFI what it even is! Here was I thinking I was an agnostic atheists all these years because I rejected Christianity and in fact all religion as a bad thing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 23:08:37 GMT
We can't both be right, and that's bad news for you. Attitudes about divorce and marriage have changed dramatically since the 50s. I doubt even you would argue that. Our difference seems to be whether anything meaningful survived. In the past divorce was a terrible thing because of the harm divorce does to children. Divorced people were stigmatized. When government stepped in and began "ensuing" children got everything they need, the stigma of divorce disappeared. No, the stigma of divorce disappeared because people started to recognise that divorce was better than the alternative. That's easy; I believe that marriage can continue to mean anything in such conditions because, unlike you, I have a firm grounding in reality. In a legal sense, marriage is a contract which brings certain benefits with it. The terms of that contract change from time to time, but never, not ever, have there ceased to be rules regarding what it is and how it works. In a more personal sense, marriage has whatever meanings the individuals involved choose to assign to it. In that regard modern marriages are no different to marriage at any other point in history. There have always been marriages based in love, marriages based in politics, marriages based in economic benefit, marriages of convenience, and a dozen other things. All this comes down to is that other people are behaving in ways that you don't want them to, and it bothers you. So you pretend that your preferred version of "strict" marriage is the "proper" version and that the only people who disagree are those who want to tear down the whole institution. It's nothing but self aggrandisement cloaked in concern. So somebody asked a question and you once again spewed out an only vaguely related bit of nonsense. What a shocker.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 14, 2018 23:20:50 GMT
We can't both be right, and that's bad news for you. Attitudes about divorce and marriage have changed dramatically since the 50s. I doubt even you would argue that. Our difference seems to be whether anything meaningful survived. In the past divorce was a terrible thing because of the harm divorce does to children. Divorced people were stigmatized. When government stepped in and began "ensuing" children got everything they need, the stigma of divorce disappeared. No, the stigma of divorce disappeared because people started to recognise that divorce was better than the alternative. That's easy; I believe that marriage can continue to mean anything in such conditions because, unlike you, I have a firm grounding in reality. In a legal sense, marriage is a contract which brings certain benefits with it. The terms of that contract change from time to time, but never, not ever, have there ceased to be rules regarding what it is and how it works. In a more personal sense, marriage has whatever meanings the individuals involved choose to assign to it. In that regard modern marriages are no different to marriage at any other point in history. There have always been marriages based in love, marriages based in politics, marriages based in economic benefit, marriages of convenience, and a dozen other things. All this comes down to is that other people are behaving in ways that you don't want them to, and it bothers you. So you pretend that your preferred version of "strict" marriage is the "proper" version and that the only people who disagree are those who want to tear down the whole institution. It's nothing but self aggrandisement cloaked in concern. So somebody asked a question and you once again spewed out an only vaguely related bit of nonsense. What a shocker. ...and those darned kids should get off Planet Arlon's lawn! [shakyfist]icon
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 15, 2018 0:05:58 GMT
<nothing much worth repeating>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 2:46:20 GMT
You made an argument there that I cannot refute. I concede the points. That's okay Arlon, can't win them all.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 15, 2018 2:50:37 GMT
According to graham > You made an argument there that I cannot refute. I concede the points. That's okay Arlon, can't win them all. I think I found the problem. Your computer is a piece of trash. I fix mine when that happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 11:20:43 GMT
That's okay Arlon, can't win them all. I know graham. I wish I could win one every now and again, though. But I'm just too ignorant. Awww, but anybody can learn.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 15, 2018 12:09:46 GMT
< I'm just like a ditzy dragon, thus my avatar. > This discussion board is dying. Are you trying to save it or kill it off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 12:54:42 GMT
< I'm just like a ditzy dragon, thus my avatar. > I wet myself at nights. I have to wear adult diapers. Oh dear, sorry to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 15, 2018 13:15:59 GMT
Yes, we need rules.
Without rules, I will rape you.
Thank goodness for the rules that hold me back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 22:41:57 GMT
This discussion board is of course a place to discuss religion, faith and spirituality. Oh wait, that's not all, it's also a place to discuss atheism. That is natural enough. How can you address any thesis without addressing its antithesis anyway? Over time any discussion can get stale. People get tired of listening to the other side. They can become stubborn and dismissive. Worse than that they can lose sight of the issues they all need to address. They can lose sight of the reasons the discussion started in the first place. When "religion" began it might well have been more about things like whether there are any rules, where they came from, what assurance is there they will be followed, can they be changed, by whom, and so on. All of which does get discussed on this board somewhat. Some think rules come from a god, some think they arise "naturally." I think it might significantly refresh the process if we set aside some issues and concentrated on others. We can get back to whether there is a god and what its properties are later. I think the underlying question whether there are any rules needs direct attention. To Have Rules or Not, That Is the Question
(for the moment anyway)
It appears inevitable that wherever there are rules there will be some opposition to them. In some cases the complaints might be trivial, in others there might be a total rejection of all the rules, or all between. With very few exceptions the people on this board have what they consider rules. Some Christians, some atheists, and others all have their versions of rules with obvious differences. A curious development from time to time however is that two parties form, call them group 'A' and group 'B,' where the rules of group 'B' are designed only to ensure no one has to follow the rules of group 'A.' The central issue really then is to have rules or not. One side develops that assembles rules and another side develops that dissembles them. It appears to "make sense" and "work out" in that "power" is "balanced." The people who make and enforce the rules are kept in certain bounds, kept from taking "advantage" of their position by misusing it. There is always someone there to challenge their work. Before the Republican Party there was the Whig Party. One became the other after Abraham Lincoln. It, before and after Lincoln, was the party of a strong central government (the one that favored rules). The Democratic party of the time opposed them (compare group 'B' somewhat). You might complain at this point that I have it backward all through. Everyone knows the Democrats favor a large government and the Republicans favor a minimal role for government. Yes, that is true today mostly, but that didn't happen till much later. What caused the reversal was the observation over a long time that government can give people things. At first it was just a "job" in the military, but it expanded later. Having realized that, the Democratic Party became a full fledged "group B" that used its rules and power to ensure no one had to follow the rules of "group A." The attitudes of quite many Democrats are not that there are rules to marriage that need to be followed by whatever gender, but that no one has to follow them. They can make up their own. They can then break their own rules later. Marriage today is all about letting the government settle any issues, letting government manage the charges of family responsibilities, all while adults come and go as they have a whim. I have much more to say on this especially about religion and what role it has in all this, but I want you to see the underlying issues and whether you have any comments on them. You go on longer than War and Peace, but say much much less.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 15, 2018 23:41:42 GMT
This discussion board is of course a place to discuss religion, faith and spirituality. Oh wait, that's not all, it's also a place to discuss atheism. That is natural enough. How can you address any thesis without addressing its antithesis anyway? Over time any discussion can get stale. People get tired of listening to the other side. They can become stubborn and dismissive. Worse than that they can lose sight of the issues they all need to address. They can lose sight of the reasons the discussion started in the first place. When "religion" began it might well have been more about things like whether there are any rules, where they came from, what assurance is there they will be followed, can they be changed, by whom, and so on. All of which does get discussed on this board somewhat. Some think rules come from a god, some think they arise "naturally." I think it might significantly refresh the process if we set aside some issues and concentrated on others. We can get back to whether there is a god and what its properties are later. I think the underlying question whether there are any rules needs direct attention. To Have Rules or Not, That Is the Question
(for the moment anyway)
It appears inevitable that wherever there are rules there will be some opposition to them. In some cases the complaints might be trivial, in others there might be a total rejection of all the rules, or all between. With very few exceptions the people on this board have what they consider rules. Some Christians, some atheists, and others all have their versions of rules with obvious differences. A curious development from time to time however is that two parties form, call them group 'A' and group 'B,' where the rules of group 'B' are designed only to ensure no one has to follow the rules of group 'A.' The central issue really then is to have rules or not. One side develops that assembles rules and another side develops that dissembles them. It appears to "make sense" and "work out" in that "power" is "balanced." The people who make and enforce the rules are kept in certain bounds, kept from taking "advantage" of their position by misusing it. There is always someone there to challenge their work. Before the Republican Party there was the Whig Party. One became the other after Abraham Lincoln. It, before and after Lincoln, was the party of a strong central government (the one that favored rules). The Democratic party of the time opposed them (compare group 'B' somewhat). You might complain at this point that I have it backward all through. Everyone knows the Democrats favor a large government and the Republicans favor a minimal role for government. Yes, that is true today mostly, but that didn't happen till much later. What caused the reversal was the observation over a long time that government can give people things. At first it was just a "job" in the military, but it expanded later. Having realized that, the Democratic Party became a full fledged "group B" that used its rules and power to ensure no one had to follow the rules of "group A." The attitudes of quite many Democrats are not that there are rules to marriage that need to be followed by whatever gender, but that no one has to follow them. They can make up their own. They can then break their own rules later. Marriage today is all about letting the government settle any issues, letting government manage the charges of family responsibilities, all while adults come and go as they have a whim. I have much more to say on this especially about religion and what role it has in all this, but I want you to see the underlying issues and whether you have any comments on them. You go on longer than War and Peace, but say much much less. You have a short attention span and the superficial, childish view of the world that results from it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2018 1:31:07 GMT
Whoa, there's only so much scintillating repartee I can manage in a week.
I see as I might have predicted that most of you are recoiling at the notion there is a group whose goal is anarchy. Of course almost no one believes they are anarchists. Each group thinks theirs is the formula for order, peace and all around happiness. Even the military thinks it has the formula for peace.
Generally though one group has lower standards, fewer requirements, and tends to confront and challenge the group with higher standards and more requirements. Are you thinking of a particular political party? Are you thinking of a particular "religion"?
Perhaps you should think of both. My original intention was to discuss whence rules arise. We have done that before. Atheists say rules arise naturally. Theists say rules arise from a god. I was hoping to advance that discussion in the light of the "naturally occurring anarchy" that you might recognize in politics and or "religion."
It is perhaps a failing of democracy that each political party must offer the masses something for their votes. It becomes all about what people can get from government, or get away with. That "something" is often jobs in the military. One poster disagreed with me that the Democrats favor a larger government. He said it was an opinion without basis. One belief about the Democratic Party I have long recognized is not true is that they favor a reduced military. They do not. In fact that's what reversed the roles of the parties. When people realized that they could get things from government they decided they like government. While the Republicans often openly promote a larger military, they don't always make it about supporting any rules. That's the belief about the Republican Party I have long recognized is not true.
The Trump supporters obviously want their party to be about the restoration of some sort of "rules" about marriage, but they don't know how. Too many of them really don't care about marriage. Even the few that do care don't know how.
And both parties want the military to succeed. They don't want to admit there had to be an intelligent designer because they prefer to depend on the military rather than fear of god. Their long failure to exercise religion has left them inept at it and wallowing in their disguised anarchy.
|
|