DIVORCE AGREEMENT

[simon99]

how about live and let live? its a view i see in this forum all the time but isnt exactly followed by that many people though. we dont really need to have our way all the time but all it takes is to make sure we retain our right to make our own decisions.

easier said than done unfortunately.

I agree with your philosophy......unfortunately, and I would hope you would agree, most people today want to dictate their views and ways of life on others to the other persons detriment. For example, as a conservative ( which I am) , my views and beliefs are being attacked on an ideological battlefield spearheaded by those who believe otherwise. So, is it possible to "live and let live?" If so, how?

 

[Kevinkris]

well your problem just like everyone elses problems are the same and i dont have that answer. i share many of the conservative views but reject others. as an atheist i dont exactly fit the demographic here but i do fell strongly about the right to possess weapons of all types to the point of knowledge to handle them properly. one thing i find off putting about a great deal of the crowd here is the insistent view that requires god for any kind of good moral activity. it also seems apparent that many of those will support the right to free expression until it interferes with their views and this could be seen in the religious sense a great deal; but not as much as the A2 views here anyway.
(not that i disagree with the latter)

the one thing i do see is the more purist libertarians as a good sign for society but i have no problem with some government oversight in very specific areas. before i catch hell for that remark, know that i do feel there is way too much of that at this point in time. the unfortunate problem with that is many of them wish to ignore significant present and future repercussions of not having standards to protect workers rights to appropriate compensation for labor and environmental risks of maily fossil fuel use as well as other chemical emissions of general production uses.

 

[simon99]

well your problem just like everyone elses problems are the same and i dont have that answer. i share many of the conservative views but reject others. as an atheist i dont exactly fit the demographic here but i do fell strongly about the right to possess weapons of all types to the point of knowledge to handle them properly. one thing i find off putting about a great deal of the crowd here is the insistent view that requires god for any kind of good moral activity. it also seems apparent that many of those will support the right to free expression until it interferes with their views and this could be seen in the religious sense a great deal; but not as much as the A2 views here anyway.
(not that i disagree with the latter)

the one thing i do see is the more purist libertarians as a good sign for society but i have no problem with some government oversight in very specific areas. before i catch hell for that remark, know that i do feel there is way too much of that at this point in time. the unfortunate problem with that is many of them wish to ignore significant present and future repercussions of not having standards to protect workers rights to appropriate compensation for labor and environmental risks of maily fossil fuel use as well as other chemical emissions of general production uses.

Interesting points Kevinkris.
As a conservative, even one as religious as myself, I can respect your views that you personally do not believe in a Creator. I think where you are missing the point, and perhaps others have done a less than an eloquent job of explaining this, is that as believers of a Creator we cherish life and value right over wrong. That's our moral compass. From the birth of creation there has been a struggle between good and evil and this theme has continued down to our day regardless of our beliefs. All you have to do is pick up the newspaper and see the battles waged between innocents and criminals. That's why "puritans" or whatever we may be labeled have such a strong belief and conviction into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that was set forth in the founding of our nation and the ideals of the Constitution.
I will say, that your statement contradicted itself when you said " for society but i have no problem with some government oversight in very specific areas. before i catch hell for that remark, know that i do feel there is way too much of that at this point in time. the unfortunate problem with that is many of them wish to ignore significant present and future repercussions of not having standards to protect workers rights to appropriate compensation for labor and environmental risks of maily fossil fuel use as well as other chemical emissions of general production uses"....

How can we, as you mentioned, "live and let live" if we have burdensome government intervention in our life? If we're told by the government how we handle our healthcare or how to raise our children? What about what kind of fertilizer to use on your lawn or what kind of gas to put in your car? You see, you can't have it both ways....You choose either liberty or anarchy.

So, by taking an analytical approach to these matters, you might see the logic and incredible insight that the framers of the Constitution had when drafting up the set of checks and balances found in that document.....a document that transcends our beliefs.

 

[Kevinkris]

well when it comes to a moral compass, im glad you have found the side of the bible that asks you to be good to others but the bible is not very clear on what is acceptable when you take into account all of the teachings. i think the book of Deuteronomy would be a great example of what i mean there but the bible is not unique in that kind of inconsistency. im sure that most christians use the bible for making good decisions but its far to easy to turn it around to cause harm to others and the westboro baptist church would personify that to keep it specific to the US. according to the bible they are absolutely correct in all of their attacks on others and the bible says to do much more than they really are but its easy to see that it is not something that makes others want to help you. which would bring me to my stance on morals, being a tool we have learned to use in order to foster a give and take relationship with others and was born from necessity; rather than religious doctrine teaching us to work together. my grand view is really i couldnt care less what people choose to believe so long as it does not negatively interfere with my life.

the part of government over sight i was referring to would be very specific to ensure others with more power do not infringe on the lives and health of others. you imply that i feel its okay to control individual actions but i feel its something that should only be done when it does actually have an effect on a large scale. telling people what they may or may not be permitted to do on their own private property is not something i would find acceptable but requiring the construction crews to use the tried and true building specifications so that your home will not collapse on you is something i would see as acceptable. that of course is a very small example but umbrella oversight is not at all what i want to see and we have far too much of that already.

 

[simon99]

well when it comes to a moral compass, im glad you have found the side of the bible that asks you to be good to others but the bible is not very clear on what is acceptable when you take into account all of the teachings. i think the book of Deuteronomy would be a great example of what i mean there but the bible is not unique in that kind of inconsistency. im sure that most christians use the bible for making good decisions but its far to easy to turn it around to cause harm to others and the westboro baptist church would personify that to keep it specific to the US. according to the bible they are absolutely correct in all of their attacks on others and the bible says to do much more than they really are but its easy to see that it is not something that makes others want to help you. which would bring me to my stance on morals, being a tool we have learned to use in order to foster a give and take relationship with others and was born from necessity; rather than religious doctrine teaching us to work together. my grand view is really i couldnt care less what people choose to believe so long as it does not negatively interfere with my life.

the part of government over sight i was referring to would be very specific to ensure others with more power do not infringe on the lives and health of others. you imply that i feel its okay to control individual actions but i feel its something that should only be done when it does actually have an effect on a large scale. telling people what they may or may not be permitted to do on their own private property is not something i would find acceptable but requiring the construction crews to use the tried and true building specifications so that your home will not collapse on you is something i would see as acceptable. that of course is a very small example but umbrella oversight is not at all what i want to see and we have far too much of that already.

So...do you think our belief as Americans in the Constitution and the Second Amendment infringes on the lives and health of others?

 

[Kevinkris]

So...do you think our belief as Americans in the Constitution and the Second Amendment infringes on the lives and health of others?

i dont think i said that.

 

[simon99]

i dont think i said that.

I realize that. No offense, I'm just asking the question.....

 

[Kevinkris]

well for the most part i like the idea of rights being openly declared on the constitution but on the other hand is the problem of looking at that document and saying these are the only rights you are entitled to. writing laws is probably one of the most profound differences between us and other creature and is probably one of the worst things imaginable. in nature you do what you need to survive but developing societies to the level that we have has given us the ability to spread knowledge and learn new ideas from others. it has given us the ability to have this conversation the way that we are but it also means we need to ability to check those would would take advantage of others sometime lack of intelligence other times lack of conviction.

when you look at california's supreme court ruling the 2A does not apply to semi-auto weapons its just wrong to limit the rights of people based on a piece of paper, rather than the laws of nature. i feel that people should be able to do what ever they like, without limits with exception to hurting others. we dont need a document to tell us what we can or cannot do, for now its a necessary evil.

 

[simon99]

well for the most part i like the idea of rights being openly declared on the constitution but on the other hand is the problem of looking at that document and saying these are the only rights you are entitled to. writing laws is probably one of the most profound differences between us and other creature and is probably one of the worst things imaginable. in nature you do what you need to survive but developing societies to the level that we have has given us the ability to spread knowledge and learn new ideas from others. it has given us the ability to have this conversation the way that we are but it also means we need to ability to check those would would take advantage of others sometime lack of intelligence other times lack of conviction.

when you look at california's supreme court ruling the 2A does not apply to semi-auto weapons its just wrong to limit the rights of people based on a piece of paper, rather than the laws of nature. i feel that people should be able to do what ever they like, without limits with exception to hurting others. we dont need a document to tell us what we can or cannot do, for now its a necessary evil.

Even nature is ruled by laws that can be bent, but never broken. When you see and comprehend the balance of those laws and see how they are harmonious in their actions, you may begin to understand how we as humans have strived to imitate those "natural laws" into our system of ethics and code of living. Otherwise, we're just savages beating our dinner with a rock.
I've enjoyed our dialogue and only hope you expand your worldview a little more. There are good people of both sides of the theological fence...hopefully you will accept them.

 

[Kevinkris]

i have no trouble accepting people of any theological view as long as they are not harmful to others.

 

[Captain O]

A little fast and loose with the term "hate speach" I think. Maybe it is just painfull to hear uncomfortable truths. Yes, it is exagerate hyperboli, but the points he makes are valid. Try refuting specific points or making counter arguments instead of dismissing the author and intent.

Discussion is the purpose of the board, not just a whole bunch of people high-fiving and agreeing with eachother, right?

That's "hate speech" sir. (Just trying to help). Disagreeing with someone does not constitute "hate speech". This is the manner in which the Left controls everyone's thoughts. "Hate speech" is a Marxist construct.

 

[EPS]

That's "hate speech" sir. (Just trying to help). Disagreeing with someone does not constitute "hate speech". This is the manner in which the Left controls everyone's thoughts. "Hate speech" is a Marxist construct.

Look at the date

 

[Flymph]

I can't believe I read that click bait, anyone have some brain bleach?

This is the kind of crap that makes our collective IQ plummet.

 

[RVTECH]

Look at the date

I did - and then stumbled on it having been posted a couple years earlier. Stuff like this is just regurgitated hyperbole and rhetoric. Change a few words, rearrange the sentences and it can be applied to another situation.

 

[EPS]

I did - and then stumbled on it having been posted a couple years earlier. Stuff like this is just regurgitated hyperbole and rhetoric. Change a few words, rearrange the sentences and it can be applied to another situation.

Been a lot of that lately really old threads showing up

 

[bolus]

From wikipedia (the solution to undesirables in the New West States)

Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country.[1] Today the expulsion of foreign nationals is usually called deportation, whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation.[2] Deportation is an ancient practice: Khosrau I, Sassanid King of Persia, deported 292,000 citizens, slaves, and conquered people to the new city of Ctesiphon in 542 C.E.[3] Britain deported religious objectors and criminals to America in large numbers before 1776,[4] and transported them to Australia between 1788 and 1868.[

penal transportation. hehe hehehe

 

[Hybrid Slave]

thats probably most important when it comes to politics.

And religion.