Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
The claim that it will become acceptable implies it would be shown to have at least neutral, if not positive consequences for the imbibers. Immoral and self destructive behavior has negative consequences. It does not make sense that behavior that has negative consequences would become more popular. Unless of course folks are artificially protected from these negative consequences as a matter of course.
One grand evil, that is reprehensible in this, is that the folks that don't imbibe and provide examples of behavior with positive consequence, are forced to pick up the tab for the imbibers.
EBUCK
EBUCK
Up until the late 1950's " LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER " was a BANNED book, in the USA ! Up until the late 1960's " TROPIC OF CANCER " was a BANNED book, in the USA ! From colonial times , until a very few decades ago, Sunday " BULE LAWS ", all over the nation, forbade not only the sale of alcohol, on Sundays, but the sale of almost EVERYTHING ! Stores had to be closed, and IF they tried to open, the police came, and closed the store !Fortunately, we've matured as a society and left such trash behind us. Or should Jewish or Moslem shopkeepers be forced to close on the Christian Sabbath even though they recognize other days as such?
"Blue Laws" are one of the most egregious violations of the principles behind the Constitution in history. Perhaps only the Japanese internment compared.
-Eric
Which is as easily debunked as the liberal claim that the 2nd Amendment only protects militias.No one logical is going to deny that there are locational restrictions on free speech, but such obvious content restrictions would have been spelled out in the document. The Framers were quite clear about exceptions in other cases and there is no reason to believe that they would not have been here. Nor can it be "implied in context", as both Franklin and Jefferson wrote voluminously on many topics beyond politics. It's clear that had they meant "political speech", they would not have simply said "speech".Hmm, let see you debunk it.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's quite logical to assume that had the Framers only meant political speech, they would have specifically said so. Bork's claim greatly diminishes his reputation as a Constitutional expert. I see how you debunk something. You just say its self-evident, based on "logic". Hmm, is that like the old argument "is plain to any reasonable person"? Like any other question of rights, you must realize of course that evaluation of any rights question is one of conflicting rights - no right is absolute. If the right to freedom of speech (and even "free expression") was intended to be absolute by the founders, how do you explain laws like blasphemy, libel, swearing, even spitting on the street? Even fraud? (Related somewhat to false advertising) The courts have approached the questions by setting up a hierarchy of "speech levels". Speech for the purpose of politics is afforded the highest level of protection. That is because all the freedoms in the constitution are "political" freedoms, not absolute ones.
E Rocc, are you one of those ex 60's radical people Bork talked about in his book?Naw, SDS didn't have tricycle brigades back then. >:) I can think of a few 80s radicals that would find that statement pretty funny though, considering some of the things my YAF chapter did. :snicker:
-Eric
Forty years ago, one night stands and living together , without the benefit of marriage, were rare. Today, those types of behaviors are acccepted, unfortunately considered to be " normal " , and there is no " safetynet ", no welfare, and no monetary reimbursments, when things don't go well. Bye bye to your assumption.
Now, consider the " FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT ", of the '60's. Prior to that time , the F word was almost NEVER heard in mixed company. " SHIT " ( sorry, Jim ! ) , was NEVER spoken in frnt of children. Most such words were NEVER said in movies, on radio, T.V., nor in songs. How many movies, today, don't contain a full compliment of words, which until the 1970's were refrained from , in almost all venues ? There is NO money, now paid to those who don't want to hear such language. Again, your therory gets easily shot down.
I could keep enumerating why ou are absolutely wrong ; however , I hope that two examples are enough to start the light bulb going off. : - )
Nope, the only thing , that we agree on, is that " HATE CRIMES " are stupid PC garbage.
Every civilization / nation has had what you would call " morality " laws. You and those who cling to the same notions ( do whatever you want to , just as long as it doesn't " appear " to you , in a benighted state, to not harm anyone else ) , are so wrong, that if it weren't so terribly dreadful / stupid, it would be laughable. You continually fail to see the forest for the trees.
" MATURITY " ? Now THAT line, has to be one of THE funniest things, posted as refutation, to have EVER seen the light of day, on FR . ROTFLOL
" LADY CATTERLEY'S LOVER " isn't all that obscene, and is beautidully written. " TROPIC OF CANCER ", " NAKED LUNCH ", Al Goldstein's " SCREW " , " HUSTLER " , rap lyrics, and the continually use of the F word by so many, is far from " mature ", in any way , shape, manner, or form.
"Forty years ago, one night stands and living together , without the benefit of marriage, were rare. Today, those types of behaviors are acccepted, unfortunately considered to be " normal " , and there is no " safetynet ", no welfare, and no monetary reimbursments, when things don't go well. Bye bye to your assumption. "
This is one in particular. It so happens that divorce was tougher to get prior and during the times you refer to. The claim that one night stands did not occur on a widespread basis is false, they did occur, that was the basis of the shotgun marriage, or marriage of honor. Living together was called common law marriage. These things were not rare, they just didn't appear in the open much. Just last night there was a 60mins piece on how 5000+ kids from single parents were shipped off to Australia, the single parents were told the kids were dead, or adopted, and the kids were told the parents were dead. One night stands were worthy of mention here.
Your mention of no safety net is not true. The particular type of behavior you are talking about is definetely sanctioned and protected by the powers that be. I've been there. I was thrown out of the house, 'cause I was dull after the ex decided she liked booze, drugs and partying more than family. The judge, with her bare feet sticking up on her desk, and a room full of psych experts told me I was nuts, literally psycho, for arguing that keeping the family intact was the right thing to do and that if the ex insisted I should have retained custody of my daughter. In other words if you want to abandon your family, the one you promised commitment to, then go ahead, but leave what is intact, take your bag of dirt and go.
The courts and experts though insist I stay away. I had to pay what amounted to lodging for her and the different creeps that entertained her. It was before stalking, so I wasn't given to hard a time by the LEOs when I kept an eye on her and sometimes had to enter and pick my daughter up off the floor and put her to bed, because everyone else was passed out from the party. I did that until my daughter was old enough to use the phone to call for help. Which she often did. I had to keep my mouth shut though and not challenge the gd authorities in the court, because I'd be bothering them with waves and then we'd both suffer.
Then the public schools did their best to undo all I had taught her, everything. The public schools aren't allowed to teach religion, but they sure as blank have an extensive program to unteach it. The system sanctions bogus claims and theories that result in destructive behavior. IMO it's deliberate to create a world full of goofs that are to dumb to exist on their own w/o their direction.
Some women make a cottage industry out of child support, the kids are just a capital asset. Some guys just walk off an try to skip their obligations. The am academy pediatrcians and pych experts just said it was a fine idea to have those jockers adopt kids. Well its not, they, all of the mentioned are going to pervert there minds.
As far as meaningless intensives go, notice how they're mostly absent from this post, but I assure you I can fend off mongol hordes with my mouth. The problem is not there use, but control over when and where to use them. No money paid to the folks that put this in media? This stuff is in the media, along with every other bizarre and foul behavior, because they're promoting it. It's part of their nihilist design to pervert minds and render the population brain dead and subject to their direction.
When I was growing up, almost every adult male smelled like ethanol. Women drank sometimes, because of that very fact. I saw the wreckage of divorce. I saw the wreckage of all sorts of destructive behavior. I didn't need a law to keep me in line, in fact I resent the imposition of those types of laws. I do so, because those types of laws include punishment of those that produce no destruction and incarceration for those that would otherwise cease, or get off the path they were on. Sanction and punish the demonstrable destruction, or violation of rights.
Young adults used to play chicken with trains when I was growing up, it was against the law, but they still did it and there was no drugs, or booze involved. Now they blow the whistle at each crossing, because dummies don't see the train, or the flashing light.
You've actually remade most of my points, with your reply.I doubt that this was your intention; but thanks anyways.:-)
" MATURITY " ? Now THAT line, has to be one of THE funniest things, posted as refutation, to have EVER seen the light of day, on FR We're not arguing about whether these things are good or bad, we're arguing about whether they should be banned by law.Particularly the Blue Laws. You implied that when the cops enforced a solely Christian tradition on everyone, it was a good thing. In other words, you said it's alright to enforce Christian conformance at gunpoint.
What you're saying is that we need Big Mommy Government to make sure we all behave ourselves? I say we don't. Which one of us sees society as more mature?
-Eric
Morality laws everywhere are challenged every day. Do you know why? I'll tell you. Because once a morality law is on the books freedom is lost! Every government in the world uses these types of laws to impose the culture of the majority upon the rest of the population.
Nearly every revolt, coup, uprising, and atrocity is caused by a large minority that has been subjected to someone elses version of morality. The Germans subjected the Jews to their morality. The Taliban subjected their population to their morality. The French were subjected to the Monarch's morality. The Pilgrims were subjected to British morality so they left and founded a country where there was no persecution based on ones beliefs. The Founders understood these things and accordingly made it against the law for our Federal Government to enforce morality of any type.
You may notice that there are no such restrictions for local laws.
And here we are with people like you that are trying to recreate the mistakes of the past in the name of morality. Please! Why is it so hard for you and yours to take responsability for yourselves and stop blaming "society" for your problems.
EBUCK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.