Will true marriage return to America via Texas?

[instaGATOR]

Your arguments make no real sense, you have no real facts. You are just exploding emotion because you believe this so much. Calling mothers un-married slut pregnant woman. They are mothers by definition. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that to try and win an argument on a website, because someone has different views than you.

Again, I don't believe in Government Forced Pregnancy. You do. I don't call you names because you don't agree with me.

GET IT TOGETHER!

Your dictionary skills are highly questionable, but we already knew that.

Your inability to carry an intelligent conversation, much less a credible debate, is obvious.


While your gross stupidity is confirmed yet again....

Noun Mother --
1. a woman in relation to her child or children.
2. Short for Mother****er.

Verb Mother ---
1. bring up a child with care and affection
2. give birth to

Infanticide ---
1. The crime of killing a child within a year of birth
2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

 

[NorthJerseyGator]

Your arguments make no real sense, you have no real facts. You are just exploding emotion because you believe this so much. Calling mothers un-married slut pregnant woman. They are mothers by definition. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that to try and win an argument on a website, because someone has different views than you.

Again, I don't believe in Government Forced Pregnancy. You do. I don't call you names because you don't agree with me.

GET IT TOGETHER!

You repeatedly say "Government forced pregnancy" as if that's a thing, lol. Are black Chevy Suburbans riding up in the middle of the night with close cropped hair, clean shaven, men in black suits wearing sunglasses at night jumping out and kicking neighborhoods' doors in, guns drawn, and horrifically raping women exactly during their time of month that they are fertile in order to carry out some X-Files super secret Jason Bourne missions to force American women to be pregnant? Curious minds want to know, please share anything at all you know of these oft mentioned Government forced pregnancies you keep alluding to.

On the flip side, you can research for yourself the Government funded Planned Parenthood that, from its inception, was developed to do the opposite of what you think the Government "forces" women to do, lol, as in the government will pay for ending pregnancies, not forcing them, lol.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Fox News is trash. Again, I haven't watched a second of their coverage since the inauguration. They aren't much better than The New York Times or The Washington Post.

I think you are trying to say we all listen to Fox so you can tell yourself you don't have to listen to what we say Because if you listen, you might find out those narratives you have been spoonfed about the right and Trump, might be all BS. As you just found out with your 'remembering' how Trump said to drink bleach.

I'll let you in on a little secret: Most Trump supporters don't have a source for news. They hear information, then they go and RESEARCH and VERIFY the information. That's how we learn.

Most libs take information they hear or read from lefty sources, and believe it blindly. This is how you 'remembered' that Trump said drink bleach, when he never used either word.

I bet you 'remember' hearing him say covid was a hoax, too. Right?

I really liked your post. I do want to talk to you about the Most libs line later. My question to you all is: Where do you all get your news? I am not going to refute or debate any answers, I just want to know. I will just listen. PROMISE!!!! It feels like I might learn something. My 2 closest conservative friends are only into Fox news. Does anybody read the National Review? I do. Educate me on news sources, please?

 

[Mr.Eko]

You repeatedly say "Government forced pregnancy" as if that's a thing, lol. Are black Chevy Suburbans riding up in the middle of the night with close cropped hair, clean shaven, men in black suits wearing sunglasses at night jumping out and kicking neighborhoods' doors in, guns drawn, and horrifically raping women exactly during their time of month that they are fertile in order to carry out some X-Files super secret Jason Bourne missions to force American women to be pregnant? Curious minds want to know, please share anything at all you know of these oft mentioned Government forced pregnancies you keep alluding to.

On the flip side, you can research for yourself the Government funded Planned Parenthood that, from its inception, was developed to do the opposite of what you think the Government "forces" women to do, lol, as in the government will pay for ending pregnancies, not forcing them, lol.

Well, isn't the State or Federal government restricting the rights of Mothers to terminate pregnancies, Government Forced Pregnancy? The Answer is yes. You can call it anything you want. You certainly have lots of names.

All the great definitions you listed above are for born children. If the baby can't live outside the womb, that is the mother's choice. She could be ill; the baby could be making her ill, the baby could be killing her, she could have been raped and a hundred million other reasons. The point is it should be her choice, not the Governments.

You and I have posted several times on this subject. We are not going to change each other's minds. Hopefully, we have provided different points of view to each other and others on the site. Plus, we are just repeating ourselves.

I can say you have great passion for this topic. However, your name-calling and mocking make you look weak, scary, and tremendously unhinged (that's not a dig, but some good feedback for late). You have had many of your arguments well-organized and prepared. So, in the spirit of peace (and me getting some sleep) let us agree to disagree.

Peace!

 

[NorthJerseyGator]

Well, isn't the State or Federal government restricting the rights of Mothers to terminate pregnancies, Government Forced Pregnancy? The Answer is yes. You can call it anything you want. You certainly have lots of names.

All the great definitions you listed above are for born children. If the baby can't live outside the womb, that is the mother's choice. She could be ill; the baby could be making her ill, the baby could be killing her, she could have been raped and a hundred million other reasons. The point is it should be her choice, not the Governments.

You and I have posted several times on this subject. We are not going to change each other's minds. Hopefully, we have provided different points of view to each other and others on the site. Plus, we are just repeating ourselves.

I can say you have great passion for this topic. However, your name-calling and mocking make you look weak, scary, and tremendously unhinged (that's not a dig, but some good feedback for late). You have had many of your arguments well-organized and prepared. So, in the spirit of peace (and me getting some sleep) let us agree to disagree.

Peace!

Only God/Yahweh, Jesus/Yeshua, Holy Spirit/Ghost can give you, I, or anybody else peace, comfort, serenity, wisdom, knowledge, and anything else we seek earnestly and wholeheartedly. That covers all topics of discussion and decisions to face that we all have in our walks on this earth.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Only God/Yahweh, Jesus/Yeshua, Holy Spirit/Ghost can give you, I, or anybody else peace, comfort, serenity, wisdom, knowledge, and anything else we seek earnestly and wholeheartedly. That covers all topics of discussion and decisions to face that we all have in our walks on this earth.

Dr. Curmudgeon

You obviously are a man of Great Christian faith. I respect that. But many other people don't have that view of how the world works. The religion that was taught to you, is not the religion of the majority of the world. You might say, " well, they should believe that". Please know, every fundamentalist religion in the world thinks that.

So, if we take the concept of the supernatural out of the equation, what is left is our own belief system not based on the supernatural but based on the world as we have experienced it and how we continue to experience it.

Clearly, both of those concepts are intertwined together in you. For a lot of us, they are not.

I certainly would never attempt to say that is not perfect for you, but it is not perfect for those of us that do not see the world intertwined that way.

I do think it is important, to at least recognize that your spiritual belief system is not right for everybody, though, you probably believe it should be.

 

[instaGATOR]

Here's the 'total twist' from a 'devil's advocate' point of view....

Who is really the racist that are working for the genocide of minorities in America?

Is it the liberal Socialist Democrats, or those who support the Constitution and Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness?

79% of the (Democrats founded, pushed, and vote to continue the tax supported) Planned Parenthood, who's abortion facilities are located within walking distance of neighborhoods that have proportionately higher populations of black or Latina women. The Rat's KKK had to stop hanging them, so they came up with an alternate plan called (oxymoron) Planned Parenthood.

Abortion in America has contributed to the greatest decline in black population since the first black slaves arrived in the Americas in the 1600s.

According to U.S. census data, there were 18,871,831 black American citizens in 1960. Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, abortion has killed an estimated 20 million black babies — more than the entire black population of 1960.

If we were actually the 'White Supremacists' we'd be advocating for and richly supporting planned parenthood. The same Rats that owned the slaves, also founded and own planned parenthood.

Instead, it was the White Christian men with the abolitionists that elected the 1st Republican President and ended slavery in America. The Rats have never forgiven us, nor will they ever.....

It's very apparent to me that Mr. Eko supports the continued genocide of blacks and other minorities.

Since Roe, abortion has killed more black babies than the entire black population of the U.S. in 1960

Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a founding member of what is now called the Association for the Study of African American History, announced the first "Negro History Week" in 1926, selecting February because it held the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, two icons in the history of blacks…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Mr.Eko]

Here's the 'total twist' from a 'devil's advocate' point of view....

Who is really the racist that are working for the genocide of minorities in America?

Is it the liberal Socialist Democrats, or those who support the Constitution and Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness?

79% of the (Democrats founded, pushed, and vote to continue the tax supported) Planned Parenthood, who's abortion facilities are located within walking distance of neighborhoods that have proportionately higher populations of black or Latina women. The Rat's KKK had to stop hanging them, so they came up with an alternate plan called (oxymoron) Planned Parenthood.

Abortion in America has contributed to the greatest decline in black population since the first black slaves arrived in the Americas in the 1600s.

According to U.S. census data, there were 18,871,831 black American citizens in 1960. Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, abortion has killed an estimated 20 million black babies — more than the entire black population of 1960.

If we were actually the 'White Supremacists' we'd be advocating for and richly supporting planned parenthood. The same Rats that owned the slaves, also founded and own planned parenthood.

Instead, it was the White Christian men with the abolitionists that elected the 1st Republican President and ended slavery in America. The Rats have never forgiven us, nor will they ever.....

It's very apparent to me that Mr. Eko supports the continued genocide of blacks and other minorities.

Since Roe, abortion has killed more black babies than the entire black population of the U.S. in 1960

Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a founding member of what is now called the Association for the Study of African American History, announced the first "Negro History Week" in 1926, selecting February because it held the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, two icons in the history of blacks…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You wrote a post with a lot to unpack. I'm struggling to understand the points of an argument. Who are the Rats, by the way?

Let's see if I can address some of what you wrote.

I never wrote ANYTHING about a racist group promoting the elimination of Minorities. Are you saying there is? Are you saying Planned Parenthood is?

Planned Parenthood exists to both help women with their pregnancies to have a safe & healthy birth and council them. Though, they do help women terminate unwanted pregnancies, that is a small part of what they do, but the most attention getting.

The reasons why so many clinics are so close to underserved areas is the need is there. Minority women are often not able to get good prenatal care because they can't afford it. Additionally, they may have difficulty with transportation in cities like New York.

I don't see any relevance in the population data you mentioned. I don't see any clandestine attempt to decrease the populations of minorities. People voluntarily come in to receive services. Most are for good prenatal care. I am guessing you do.

I don't recall anybody saying White Supremacists are, or are implied, in any sort of plan to decrease minorities. I have never heard that. Have you?

You are absolutely right about REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln & forward- thinking Christians abolishing slavery!!!

It does not appear your argument or data supports the supposition that I support genocide of blacks and other minorities. I think you were providing data of a declining population (which I have not fact checked) due to an implicit plan to increase the abortions of unwanted pregnancies of minorities.

Your argument would be hard to win because people seek services there voluntarily and most of the services provided are for safe & healthy births of children. It does have the makings of a good conspiracy theory, which I assume it is.

I must commend you on having data to support your argument. Well done!!!

 

[instaGATOR]

Rats = Dim-Moe-Rats, formally know as the Democratic Party and it's racist supporters.

Anyone that supports Abortion or has one is an infanticide by definition.
Planned Parenthood is an oxymoron. Planned Murder is what it really is.

Educating the lazy ignorant is such a tough/endless job that I should get paid.
>>> Facts about Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood. by APFLI | Oct 23, 2011 | Eugenics / Race-Linked Abortion / Reproductive Racism | 0 comments. Quotes, Historical Information…. Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the (corrupt) minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." --- Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers."

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said: "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired an (uncle-tom) full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.

Facts about Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood | Physicians for Life

Quotes, Historical Information... Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not wantword to go out that we want to

www.physiciansforlife.org

I'll quit for now with that, to see if you can digest reality, as i wouldn't want to overload you with too much of it at one time....

 

[Mr.Eko]

Rats = Dim-Moe-Rats, formally know as the Democratic Party and it's racist supporters.

Anyone that supports Abortion or has one is an infanticide by definition.
Planned Parenthood is an oxymoron. Planned Murder is what it really is.

Educating the lazy ignorant is such a tough/endless job that I should get paid.
>>> Facts about Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood. by APFLI | Oct 23, 2011 | Eugenics / Race-Linked Abortion / Reproductive Racism | 0 comments. Quotes, Historical Information…. Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the (corrupt) minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." --- Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers."

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said: "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired an (uncle-tom) full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.

Facts about Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood | Physicians for Life

Quotes, Historical Information... Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not wantword to go out that we want to

www.physiciansforlife.org

I'll quit for now with that, to see if you can digest reality, as i wouldn't want to overload you with too much of it at one time....

Insta:

You did so well with your post until you went 'All Conspiracy Theory' on me. You literally left me with nothing to refute because this argument is so unbelievably bizarre and not even close to the realm of reality. What scares me is you believe it. But you do believe it, and so we will end this here.

 

[instaGATOR]

Insta:

You did so well with your post until you went 'All Conspiracy Theory' on me. You literally left me with nothing to refute because this argument is so unbelievably bizarre and not even close to the realm of reality. What scares me is you believe it. But you do believe it, and so we will end this here.

And yet again this ignorant twit is unable (not unwilling) to refute reality as it's presented by their own words and deeds, i.e.

Founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.

Her BOOK - <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers."

Disprove any of that as a Conspiracy Theory.
Or disprove any the following provable quotes:

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said: "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired an (uncle-tom) full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.

Your own mealymouthed loser excuses are seen for what they are by anyone reading here.

 

[Mr.Eko]

And yet again this ignorant twit is unable (not unwilling) to refute reality as it's presented by their own words and deeds, i.e.

Founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.

Her BOOK - <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers."

Disprove any of that as a Conspiracy Theory.
Or disprove any the following provable quotes:

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, said: "There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the conference in Atlanta." Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of America hired an (uncle-tom) full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.

Your own mealymouthed loser excuses are seen for what they are by anyone reading here.

I'm not trying to set you off, but I don't see a point there. You have included various quotes from people dating back to 1939 which have no impact because context was not given to any particular point. Then you get angry when people don't understand it. I think you are railing against something, but you don't say what it is. You get frustrated and name call.

So, in few words, say what point you are trying to make about this topic, please.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I'm not trying to set you off, but I don't see a point there. You have included various quotes from people dating back to 1939 which have no impact because context was not given to any particular point. Then you get angry when people don't understand it. I think you are railing against something, but you don't say what it is. You get frustrated and name call.

So, in few words, say what point you are trying to make about this topic, please.

He's saying the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a known eugenicist with a stated goal of using abortion as a tool to eradicate the black race.

All you have to do is do a quick search online and you can confirm this. You can also easily confirm that she was a hero to the dem party for this. hillary even stated this recently that Sanger was her hero.

I doubt your activist professors told you any of that. I bet they didn't teach you to critically think about new information as it is presented to you, either. Did they?

Method to the madness.

 

[fatman76]

Not sure I understand the question. Who's religious freedoms are under assault if gay marriage being legal is overturned?

We know that making it legal goes against Christian teachings. Is there another religion that teaches that gay marriage is the acceptable form of marriage?

It's curious how we keep passing laws that go against Christian teachings, then when Christians object and want to overturn said laws, then Christians are told we need to respect the religious freedoms of all.

What the what????

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion IMO.

Technically being atheist is a form of Religion, as is being Pagan.

I've known too many miserable gay couples to deny them the right to suffer like us hetero's. I also see it as a tax cut in certain circumstances.

Trump was the first President to enter the WH in favor of gay marriage. I don't align with him on everything, but if two people care enough about each other to enter a legally binding, often financially disastrous, agreement with each other, I'm not going to stand in their way. Any religious fallout is on them, not me.

Lastly, politically I don't think this is a winner for Conservatives.

 

[park_mike]

@Mr.Eko
I am interested in your logic here. Let us leave religion out of the abortion debate for a moment. Couple of questions...

1. Does the government have the right to restrict people's actions or enforce natural consequences from those actions?

2. Is there any absolute moral standard and if so, where does it come from and how can we know what it is?

3. Should human life and the protection of it be determined by whether or not it is wanted or useful to society?

4. Should laws be consistent in how they treat human life or the destruction of it?

5. Are all people equal in worth and value regardless of race, creed, gender, usefulness and the like? Basically, is death of a 90 year old homeless man the same tragedy as the death of a 40 year old doctor who is curing childhood cancer?

6. Do you believe in Darwinian Evolution and a hierarchy to nature?

Lets start there and see what your point of view is so we can have a useful discussion on the topic using simple logic without the need to devolve into personal attacks which only mask one's inability to articulate a cohesive thought process.

 

[Mr.Eko]

He's saying the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a known eugenicist with a stated goal of using abortion as a tool to eradicate the black race.

All you have to do is do a quick search online and you can confirm this. You can also easily confirm that she was a hero to the dem party for this. hillary even stated this recently that Sanger was her hero.

I doubt your activist professors told you any of that. I bet they didn't teach you to critically think about new information as it is presented to you, either. Did they?

Method to the madnes

@Mr.Eko
I am interested in your logic here. Let us leave religion out of the abortion debate for a moment. Couple of questions...

1. Does the government have the right to restrict people's actions or enforce natural consequences from those actions?

2. Is there any absolute moral standard and if so, where does it come from and how can we know what it is?

3. Should human life and the protection of it be determined by whether or not it is wanted or useful to society?

4. Should laws be consistent in how they treat human life or the destruction of it?

5. Are all people equal in worth and value regardless of race, creed, gender, usefulness and the like? Basically, is death of a 90 year old homeless man the same tragedy as the death of a 40 year old doctor who is curing childhood cancer?

6. Do you believe in Darwinian Evolution and a hierarchy to nature?

Lets start there and see what your point of view is so we can have a useful discussion on the topic using simple logic without the need to devolve into personal attacks which only mask one's inability to articulate a cohesive thought process.

Now, this is a GREAT response!!!!! Extremely Well Done! Make your argument for each of your 6 points and I will counter if I disagree. It wanders a just little bit off topic, but it is chock full of really great philosophical questions. I await your arguments.

 

[NavigatorII]

"Government forced pregnancy"

 

[park_mike]

In my opinion, it is very topical as all these questions relate to an overarching world view. Too many people compartmentalize and take mutually exclusive positions which cannot coexist in a logical manner. Lets start with the first point.

I believe that government has the right to restrict certain actions regardless of moral implications as government, at least this representative republic, is a social contract between its citizens to ensure domestic tranquility...that is to set up rules to live by. As such, it has the right to say if you engage in a certain behavior of your own volition, you may be obligated to take whatever consequences arise from that. For example, you have the right to imbue alcohol. You have the privilege to drive an automobile. However, if you drive an automobile while drinking alcohol, you can be arrested and the natural consequence to that may be sanctions including the loss of certain freedoms granted to other citizens.

Do you agree the government has such authority or should have such authority?

 

[Mr.Eko]

@Mr.Eko
I am interested in your logic here. Let us leave religion out of the abortion debate for a moment. Couple of questions...

1. Does the government have the right to restrict people's actions or enforce natural consequences from those actions?

2. Is there any absolute moral standard and if so, where does it come from and how can we know what it is?

3. Should human life and the protection of it be determined by whether or not it is wanted or useful to society?

4. Should laws be consistent in how they treat human life or the destruction of it?

5. Are all people equal in worth and value regardless of race, creed, gender, usefulness and the like? Basically, is death of a 90 year old homeless man the same tragedy as the death of a 40 year old doctor who is curing childhood cancer?

6. Do you believe in Darwinian Evolution and a hierarchy to nature?

Lets start there and see what your point of view is so we can have a useful discussion on the topic using simple logic without the need to devolve into personal attacks which only mask one's inability to articulate a cohesive thought process.

@Mr.Eko
I am interested in your logic here. Let us leave religion out of the abortion debate for a moment. Couple of questions...

1. Does the government have the right to restrict people's actions or enforce natural consequences from those actions?

2. Is there any absolute moral standard and if so, where does it come from and how can we know what it is?

3. Should human life and the protection of it be determined by whether or not it is wanted or useful to society?

4. Should laws be consistent in how they treat human life or the destruction of it?

5. Are all people equal in worth and value regardless of race, creed, gender, usefulness and the like? Basically, is death of a 90 year old homeless man the same tragedy as the death of a 40 year old doctor who is curing childhood cancer?

6. Do you believe in Darwinian Evolution and a hierarchy to nature?

Lets start there and see what your point of view is so we can have a useful discussion on the topic using simple logic without the need to devolve into personal attacks which only mask one's inability to articulate a cohesive thought process.

Now this is a GREAT response!!! Well done! it wanders just a bit off topic but is full of really great philosophical questions. Please make an argument for each of your 6 points and I will counter if I disagree. I await your arguments.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

@Mr.Eko
I am interested in your logic here. Let us leave religion out of the abortion debate for a moment. Couple of questions...

Lets start there and see what your point of view is so we can have a useful discussion on the topic using simple logic without the need to devolve into personal attacks which only mask one's inability to articulate a cohesive thought process.

Now this is a GREAT response!!! Well done! it wanders just a bit off topic but is full of really great philosophical questions. Please make an argument for each of your 6 points and I will counter if I disagree. I await your arguments.

Why didn't you answer his questions?

 

[Mr.Eko]

In my opinion, it is very topical as all these questions relate to an overarching world view. Too many people compartmentalize and take mutually exclusive positions which cannot coexist in a logical manner. Lets start with the first point.

I believe that government has the right to restrict certain actions regardless of moral implications as government, at least this representative republic, is a social contract between its citizens to ensure domestic tranquility...that is to set up rules to live by. As such, it has the right to say if you engage in a certain behavior of your own volition, you may be obligated to take whatever consequences arise from that. For example, you have the right to imbue alcohol. You have the privilege to drive an automobile. However, if you drive an automobile while drinking alcohol, you can be arrested and the natural consequence to that may be sanctions including the loss of certain freedoms granted to other citizens.

Do you agree the government has such authority or should have such authority?

You write extremely compelling arguments. Yes, I do believe that. That is why the Government upholds vaccine mandates in private business, because the mandate becomes intertwined with job description.

Now, if you are leading towards the abortion issue. (See bolded phrase above), the social contract may or not be Constitutional, which is why we have a Supreme Court. The reason abortion is such a hot-button topic (beside the obvious), is there are obvious winners and losers. Women can be forced to come to term with unwanted pregnancies by the government or fetuses can continue to come to term and become born. People tend to fall on one side or the other. There is no right answer, though people on each side tend to think they ARE right.

I have NOT done a very good job of answering your final (real) question. I have provided context, however. The government by its definition (to govern) has the authority. As to whether Government should exert such authority is up to the courts and perhaps to a much, much lesser extent, public opinion and history.

As a totally unrelated aside: I think President Biden made a very courageous decision to not stack the Supreme Court to stop the overturn of Roe Vs. Wade. I don't believe he thinks 13 or 15 Supreme Court Justices is better for America than nine. Of course, he still might

He may do it later, but that would set a dangerous precedent where every term we keep adding Supreme Court Justices to get the vote each President wants.

 

[park_mike]

You write extremely compelling arguments. Yes, I do believe that. That is why the Government upholds vaccine mandates in private business, because the mandate becomes intertwined with job description.

Now, if you are leading towards the abortion issue. (See bolded phrase above), the social contract may or not be Constitutional, which is why we have a Supreme Court. The reason abortion is such a hot-button topic (beside the obvious), is there are obvious winners and losers. Women can be forced to come to term with unwanted pregnancies by the government or fetuses can continue to come to term and become born. People tend to fall on one side or the other. There is no right answer, though people on each side tend to think they ARE right.

I have NOT done a very good job of answering your final (real) question. I have provided context, however. The government by its definition (to govern) has the authority. As to whether Government should exert such authority is up to the courts and perhaps to a much, much lesser extent, public opinion and history.

As a totally unrelated aside: I think President Biden made a very courageous decision to not stack the Supreme Court to stop the overturn of Roe Vs. Wade. I don't believe he thinks 13 or 15 Supreme Court Justices is better for America than nine. Of course, he still might

He may do it later, but that would set a dangerous precedent where every term we keep adding Supreme Court Justices to get the vote each President wants.

Thank you for your answer.

First, our government is a social contract as it is aptly described by Lincoln as of the people, by the people and for the people. The Declaration of Independence said similar things as it related to a social contract with rulers and when that social contract should be broken. The Constitution is the social contract. The legislature enacts laws to reflect current societies beliefs about appropriate behavior to govern society. These laws will be enforced by the executive branch unless they violate the overarching Constitutional protections.

Now, that being said, from your response, you believe that the government does have power over the individual to both protect and punish certain behavior. Therefore, you would have to admit none of us actually have unlimited freedom to do what we please including bodily autonomy. As such, there is a level of governmental interference into our own volition which we deem necessary. You would probably argue that a mandated vaccine would be one of those things to protect the general population.

Using that same thought, regardless of the religious implications, would you not agree that the government has the authority and right to protect the lives of its citizens or even those noncitizens within its boarders. For example, could or should the government prosecute the murder of a noncitizen of a citizen, or does not noncitizen not have any rights or personhood recognized by the state?

 

[Mr.Eko]

Thank you for your answer.

First, our government is a social contract as it is aptly described by Lincoln as of the people, by the people and for the people. The Declaration of Independence said similar things as it related to a social contract with rulers and when that social contract should be broken. The Constitution is the social contract. The legislature enacts laws to reflect current societies beliefs about appropriate behavior to govern society. These laws will be enforced by the executive branch unless they violate the overarching Constitutional protections.

Now, that being said, from your response, you believe that the government does have power over the individual to both protect and punish certain behavior. Therefore, you would have to admit none of us actually have unlimited freedom to do what we please including bodily autonomy. As such, there is a level of governmental interference into our own volition which we deem necessary. You would probably argue that a mandated vaccine would be one of those things to protect the general population.

Using that same thought, regardless of the religious implications, would you not agree that the government has the authority and right to protect the lives of its citizens or even those noncitizens within its boarders. For example, could or should the government prosecute the murder of a noncitizen of a citizen, or does not noncitizen not have any rights or personhood recognized by the state?

Bolded phrase 1. It is implied that Government has rules that should be followed.

Bolded phase 2. Partly, not completely. I do not view, for example, fetuses as being citizen's or non-citizens. They are simply fetuses. I think those terms should be reserved for real, born children with those rights (though a fair share of Americans might/ will disagree with me) Additionally, protect would have to be fairly well-defined.

Your 'protected remark' seems on the surface a no-brainer (who wouldn't want that or believe that), but again, 'protected' needs to be defined. You could say, government will define that because you have granted them that authority. In essence, that is partly true. However, the citizens can have the courts define it under the Constitution.

For example, the government might say' we want to kill all left-handed people to protect the right-handed people because of impurity dangers that Left-handed people pose. Left-handed people might say No, let the courts decide if that is constitutional.

I am totally enjoying this conversation; However, I'm getting tired and that's about all I can write today.

 

[Mr.Eko]

He's saying the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a known eugenicist with a stated goal of using abortion as a tool to eradicate the black race.

All you have to do is do a quick search online and you can confirm this. You can also easily confirm that she was a hero to the dem party for this. hillary even stated this recently that Sanger was her hero.

I doubt your activist professors told you any of that. I bet they didn't teach you to critically think about new information as it is presented to you, either. Did they?

Method to the madness.

Ghost: thank you for interpreting.

I have spent some time researching her. She is a 'suspected' eugenicist with no goals of using abortion as a tool to eradicate the black race. The bolded statement appears untrue. I can see, however, how & why right-wing extremists would want to turn that into a talking point.

Everything I read about her makes her seem like a saint. Her work was kind, considerate, compassionate, and from all accounts greatly needed. I can see why she is so revered by people all over the world.

Since I had to deep dive into several (8) thick articles about her. I didn't see any real evidence that her philosophy, if she indeed had a eugenics philosophy, influenced her compassionate work.

I did read 2 short pieces also and watched 2 shaky short videos from right-wing extremists about her. They did not seem to have much merit as they simply tried to re-interpret her work to their particular liking. The evidence of her great work is overwhelming, compared to the 2 short hatchet pieces I read.

the 1930's must have been a difficult (obviously) and overwhelming time. People WERE exploring eugenics in many capacities. Some clearly not so good. It does appear at this time, Ms. Sanger was not using it in any way for ill.

There is a book on her life that has been written, that is still in print. I ordered it an hour ago.

 

[instaGATOR]

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion IMO.

Technically being atheist is a form of Religion, as is being Pagan.

I've known too many miserable gay couples to deny them the right to suffer like us hetero's. I also see it as a tax cut in certain circumstances.

Trump was the first President to enter the WH in favor of gay marriage. I don't align with him on everything, but if two people care enough about each other to enter a legally binding, often financially disastrous, agreement with each other, I'm not going to stand in their way. Any religious fallout is on them, not me.

Lastly, politically I don't think this is a winner for Conservatives.

Then let them call it a Gay Union instead of calling it a Marriage.
I'm okay with a secular government treating it the same for tax or business purposes.

Marriage (for at least the last 5,000 years) has been a sacred contract between a genetic male and a female.
While attempting to sanctify their Gay Union under any Christian religion is a sacrilege imo.

Human Tolerance does not equal religious Acceptance in my frame of reference.....

 

[fatman76]

Then let them call it a Gay Union instead of calling it a Marriage.
I'm okay with a secular government treating it the same for tax or business purposes.

Marriage (for at least the last 5,000 years) has been a sacred contract between a genetic male and a female.
While attempting to sanctify their Gay Union under any Christian religion is a sacrilege imo.

Human Tolerance does not equal religious Acceptance in my frame of reference.....

As long as we let them be as miserable and financially tied to each other as men and women I don't care what you call it.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Everything I read about her makes her seem like a saint.

I don't doubt this at all.

 

[park_mike]

Bolded phrase 1. It is implied that Government has rules that should be followed.

Bolded phase 2. Partly, not completely. I do not view, for example, fetuses as being citizen's or non-citizens. They are simply fetuses. I think those terms should be reserved for real, born children with those rights (though a fair share of Americans might/ will disagree with me) Additionally, protect would have to be fairly well-defined.

Your 'protected remark' seems on the surface a no-brainer (who wouldn't want that or believe that), but again, 'protected' needs to be defined. You could say, government will define that because you have granted them that authority. In essence, that is partly true. However, the citizens can have the courts define it under the Constitution.

For example, the government might say' we want to kill all left-handed people to protect the right-handed people because of impurity dangers that Left-handed people pose. Left-handed people might say No, let the courts decide if that is constitutional.

I am totally enjoying this conversation; However, I'm getting tired and that's about all I can write today.

Eko,

Let's not jump to conclusions instead of walking down through the process. That is the only way you and I can tell if our positions make sense and it also allows us to see where exactly we agree and disagree. That is much more productive than just fighting over conclusions, don't you agree? If we can narrow down the issue and crystalize it into a specific point, we can better understand each other.

It does not matter whether you think fetuses or unborn babies are citizens. The question is how does the law or culture treat them for purposes of our society and its operation. For example, we seem to have conflicting laws. On one hand, in most states, you can abort an unborn baby at will with no legal consequences. On the other hand, if a person hits a pregnant mother and the baby in her womb dies, that person can be charged with homicide. Homicide is an act of a human killing another person. A homicide requires only a volitional act that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.

Would you agree that, based on these conflicting laws, current jurisprudence either defines human life in terms of whether it is wanted or not, or conversely, is inconsistent with how it defines human life and compartmentalizes it into mutually exclusive boxes depending on the subject being discussed? Which one do you believe? Also, if you think current law is okay, are you saying that the unborn child's personhood is defined by whether or not the mother wants the child?

Please do not dodge this question by trying to imply that the unborn baby is the property or a part of the mother. If that were the case, then it could not be homicide, but simple destruction of property or assault and battery on the mother, not homicide, which is the legal cause of action.

As for the protected question, are you agreeing that government is fine with defining personhood by the majority vote and it is okay, as long as it is constitutional, to kill a certain portion of the populous based on a certain criteria as long as the majority votes in favor of such? This is getting into an absolute verses relative morality discussion, which I am happy to engage in as it is extremely important.

Looking forward to a great discussion...

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Why didn't you answer his questions?

Bump. Trolling 101.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Bump. Trolling 101.

Ghost: you are a trip. LOL I wasn't even awake at 9:08 or 10: 08 this morning. I just read this query a few hours ago.

I have written 3 or more rebuttals to questions asked of me today. I've got to get other things (like Christmas wrapping) done today as well.

I'm going to reply to Mike's remarks Saturday, because my response won't take too long.

I want to comment on the John Durham Criminal Investigation on Monday, since that will take longer and is more interesting to comment on.

Sunday is Spiderman, Yellowstone, and lots of wrapping.

I am sorry if this does not meet your current timeline & scheduling of me. LOL

 

[park_mike]

Bump. Trolling 101.

Ghost: you are a trip. LOL I wasn't even awake at 9:08 or 10: 08 this morning. I just read this query a few hours ago.

I have written 3 or more rebuttals to questions asked of me today. I've got to get other things (like Christmas wrapping) done today as well.

I'm going to reply to Mike's remarks Saturday, because my response won't take too long.

I want to comment on the John Durham Criminal Investigation on Monday, since that will take longer and is more interesting to comment on.

Sunday is Spiderman, Yellowstone, and lots of wrapping.

I am sorry if this does not meet your current timeline & scheduling of me. LOL

Actually, put the above on hold and answer this: do you believe in morality as a concept, if so is it absolute and where does the moral standard come from...this will answer a bunch of questions and lines of logical reasoning all at once.

 

[EvilWayz]

Ghost: you are a trip. LOL I wasn't even awake at 9:08 or 10: 08 this morning. I just read this query a few hours ago.

I have written 3 or more rebuttals to questions asked of me today. I've got to get other things (like Christmas wrapping) done today as well.

I'm going to reply to Mike's remarks Saturday, because my response won't take too long.

I want to comment on the John Durham Criminal Investigation on Monday, since that will take longer and is more interesting to comment on.

Sunday is Spiderman, Yellowstone, and lots of wrapping.

I am sorry if this does not meet your current timeline & scheduling of me. LOL

Spiderman is woke garbage, save your money.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Spiderman is woke garbage, save your money.

MAKE
MINE
MARVEL!!
LOL!

 

[Mr.Eko]

Eko,

Let's not jump to conclusions instead of walking down through the process. That is the only way you and I can tell if our positions make sense and it also allows us to see where exactly we agree and disagree. That is much more productive than just fighting over conclusions, don't you agree? If we can narrow down the issue and crystalize it into a specific point, we can better understand each other.

It does not matter whether you think fetuses or unborn babies are citizens. The question is how does the law or culture treat them for purposes of our society and its operation. For example, we seem to have conflicting laws. On one hand, in most states, you can abort an unborn baby at will with no legal consequences. On the other hand, if a person hits a pregnant mother and the baby in her womb dies, that person can be charged with homicide. Homicide is an act of a human killing another person. A homicide requires only a volitional act that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.

Would you agree that, based on these conflicting laws, current jurisprudence either defines human life in terms of whether it is wanted or not, or conversely, is inconsistent with how it defines human life and compartmentalizes it into mutually exclusive boxes depending on the subject being discussed? Which one do you believe? Also, if you think current law is okay, are you saying that the unborn child's personhood is defined by whether or not the mother wants the child?

Please do not dodge this question by trying to imply that the unborn baby is the property or a part of the mother. If that were the case, then it could not be homicide, but simple destruction of property or assault and battery on the mother, not homicide, which is the legal cause of action.

As for the protected question, are you agreeing that government is fine with defining personhood by the majority vote and it is okay, as long as it is constitutional, to kill a certain portion of the populous based on a certain criteria as long as the majority votes in favor of such? This is getting into an absolute verses relative morality discussion, which I am happy to engage in as it is extremely important.

Looking forward to a great discussion...

Well, you are very good at writing briefs. -LOL. I don't know if you are a chess player, but you certainly move your pieces around the board very well to ensnare your opponent. I do think you wrote 1/2 a brief and were waiting for my answers to finish it up.

As I was reading the first part your post, I scribbled down a thought/term that you mentioned at the very end: Personhood. When does a being become a person? Who defines what a person is and when? You also mentioned morality. What is moral? who decides what is moral? Should men have a vote about abortion? Does an individual, a group, society as a whole, or the Government decide what is moral?

If we could go back in time and could kill baby Hitler, should we? That baby hasn't done anything immoral. Should we take him to a place in the past where he could do no harm? Should we take him back with us to the future to teach him the importance of morality? What should we do?

What would you do? Would you break God's commandant and kill an innocent (at that time) baby or snuff him out in a heartbeat knowing what he will do and don't want to take a chance of him hurting anyone (and possibly spend eternity in hell with condemnation from your creator)?

These are good philosophical and moral questions. Perhaps an answer lies strangely, in of all places, a bit of television writing which takes place in the late 22nd & 23rd centuries but written in the 20th century.

It is "The Kobayashi Maru: The unwinnable scenario. It is a Test of Character" which was created in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn Film. The Kobayashi Maru (google it now) has been discussed in college classes and businesses around the world. It is an entire semester in universities in Japan.

The Kobayashi Maru is the unwinnable scenario. in this case arguments can't always be won. In the situation of Government Forced Pregnancy there is no right or wrong side because each side prioritizes different values. You have seen this play out on this board and all around the world. That's why on some level, discussion just inflames positions that are moral to each side. That is why folks are so volatile because each side feels they are morally right. But nobody and everybody is right and wrong.

I asked the questions earlier about personhood and morality, because these are the questions involved, that make this issue the Kobayashi Maru.

So, the path you were leading me to was for me to comment on actual laws or the making of laws and which laws do we choose. The problem is I don't have much of a comment.

The Supreme Court decides on which laws will exist and which laws won't. We had a moderate court that decided abortion is legal., we have a conservative Supreme Court that is likely to repeal it.

Of course, Biden can ensure the Supreme Court can't repeal Rowe vs Wade by stacking the court. Women's reproductive rights are saved. However, stacking the court will most likely hurt America in Biden's opinion.

1. This is NOT a lesser of 2 bad choices. Both choices will lead to something bad. Not stacking the court will lead to the loss of women's reproductive rights, Stacking the court could lead to something terrible down the road.

2. Women's Reproductive Rights

Both = The Kobayashi Maru: The unwinnable scenario.

 

[jfegaly]

This is an interesting topic for me. While I personally believe homosexuality is immoral based on the teachings of the Bible, which I believe is God's inerrant word, I don't believe that the state should engage in legislating morality on these types of issues. The problem is when you do that, you have to pick a morality based on a religious or other moral system which may be different than your own. Everyone seems to think that their morality is correct and is willing to force the "nonbelievers" into submission for their own good.

This is precisely what drove the founding of the American colonies in the first place as individuals were were seeking to escape religious persecution from Catholic Europe. The death and destruction from those years in Europe were based on groups of people who believed essentially the same thing and in the same God, just interpreted scripture differently. How much more violent can it get when opposition groups who fundamentally disagree on virtually every point regarding a world view clash on these topics. We are starting to see that play out right now.

To that end, I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. If there are no benefits to being married, then there is no real fight over marriage. In all his teachings, Jesus never suggested to overthrow the Roman political system in favor of his moral agenda and the Roman system was far more oppressive to traditional Judaism upon which the Judeo-Christian belief system is based than current Western society.

People trying to make other people moral through government intervention will never work. In my opinion, the government should do nothing more than set limited rules to govern such as protecting individuals from harm, national defense, and enforcing property rights and leave morality to each individual. Then, no one can complain and no one can force morality upon another. Ironically, Christians unknowingly are acting in the same manner they are railing against by demanding LGBT people adhere to their moral standards while simultaneously lamenting the fact that LGBT people are attempting to enforce their moral agenda upon them.

We are never going to achieve a utopian society where everyone believes the same thing. We can only strive toward a society where we are truly free to make our own decisions regarding how to live our lives free from the imposition of another's morality upon us. Unfortunately, that seems like a lost cause in this world. One possible suggestion is that the government no longer defines or even acknowledges marriage as a legal entity and allows religious groups to do that. To the extent that people enter into legal contracts regarding the joint ownership of assets, the court system can still manage that. Also, the court system can continue to engage in the protection of minor children through the imposition of visitation and child support. While I think this will further devolve society, it appears to be the only logical solution at this point given the vast disparity in beliefs regarding morality and marriage.

Agree. If the government hadn’t gotten involved with marriage to begin with, licensing, taxes etc….this would be a non issue. You would think folks who want to limit government would be all over this. I know I am.

Let churches decide what marriage is, get government out of the way, and we wouldn’t be trying to legislate this crap.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

One problem is the LGBTQwerty mafia trying to force acceptance on society. They and their allies are ruining entertainment with voluntary DEI quotas.

With wishy washy court rulings it appears Christians will have to quit doing public weddings and contract their wedding services out to properly aligned churches.

It is a truly crappy time we live in with sick perversions being paraded as normal, a virus shutting down the world, suppression of free speech, the rise of DEI nonsense, CRT, inflation, and the actions of a quisling POTUSINO.

Could the mixed bag Elon Musk with starlink, the questionable CEO of Gab with his various alt services, and others pull off the parallel society and save America from its leftarded other half?

 

[park_mike]

Well, you are very good at writing briefs. -LOL. I don't know if you are a chess player, but you certainly move your pieces around the board very well to ensnare your opponent. I do think you wrote 1/2 a brief and were waiting for my answers to finish it up.

As I was reading the first part your post, I scribbled down a thought/term that you mentioned at the very end: Personhood. When does a being become a person? Who defines what a person is and when? You also mentioned morality. What is moral? who decides what is moral? Should men have a vote about abortion? Does an individual, a group, society as a whole, or the Government decide what is moral?

If we could go back in time and could kill baby Hitler, should we? That baby hasn't done anything immoral. Should we take him to a place in the past where he could do no harm? Should we take him back with us to the future to teach him the importance of morality? What should we do?

What would you do? Would you break God's commandant and kill an innocent (at that time) baby or snuff him out in a heartbeat knowing what he will do and don't want to take a chance of him hurting anyone (and possibly spend eternity in hell with condemnation from your creator)?

These are good philosophical and moral questions. Perhaps an answer lies strangely, in of all places, a bit of television writing which takes place in the late 22nd & 23rd centuries but written in the 20th century.

It is "The Kobayashi Maru: The unwinnable scenario. It is a Test of Character" which was created in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn Film. The Kobayashi Maru (google it now) has been discussed in college classes and businesses around the world. It is an entire semester in universities in Japan.

The Kobayashi Maru is the unwinnable scenario. in this case arguments can't always be won. In the situation of Government Forced Pregnancy there is no right or wrong side because each side prioritizes different values. You have seen this play out on this board and all around the world. That's why on some level, discussion just inflames positions that are moral to each side. That is why folks are so volatile because each side feels they are morally right. But nobody and everybody is right and wrong.

I asked the questions earlier about personhood and morality, because these are the questions involved, that make this issue the Kobayashi Maru.

So, the path you were leading me to was for me to comment on actual laws or the making of laws and which laws do we choose. The problem is I don't have much of a comment.

The Supreme Court decides on which laws will exist and which laws won't. We had a moderate court that decided abortion is legal., we have a conservative Supreme Court that is likely to repeal it.

Of course, Biden can ensure the Supreme Court can't repeal Rowe vs Wade by stacking the court. Women's reproductive rights are saved. However, stacking the court will most likely hurt America in Biden's opinion.

1. This is NOT a lesser of 2 bad choices. Both choices will lead to something bad. Not stacking the court will lead to the loss of women's reproductive rights, Stacking the court could lead to something terrible down the road.

2. Women's Reproductive Rights

Both = The Kobayashi Maru: The unwinnable scenario.

So, with all due respect, you wrote a lot of words, but did not answer my very direct question. It is not my intention to ensnare you. Based on your prior posts, I believed you were a person who is interested in a logic based approach to dealing with the current major issues facing us as a culture today. I was simply trying to narrow down where we can agree and where we disagree. It was never my intention to embarrass or entrap you, only to see what logical process you used to derive your conclusions and see if we can discuss where we disagree. I hope that makes sense.

I was going back to a moral question as where you derive your moral compass will make a great deal of difference on our conversation. If you do not believe in a God or any higher moral standard and believe solely in Darwinian evolution, then you cannot believe in absolute morality and therefore, whatever the majority of man says is moral. If you do believe in a higher source of transcendent morality, then where do you derive that morality, who gives it, and how do we use that in forming our society, if at all.

To put it simply, how do you define good and evil? This is not an unwinnable scenario if you have a firm logical basis. It is only unwinnable if your ultimate conclusion is not backed by sound logic. I would love to have an actual logical discussion with you as I believe it is very important, especially in this day and age, to be able to discuss these hot button issues with those with whom we disagree without resorting to mere feelings or wants as to the ultimate conclusion, but based on sound logic and an appreciation for the other's point of view. So, if you would like to answer my questions, I would welcome additional discussion. If you do not feel the desire or need to, that is fine. Just know I am ready, willing and extremely able to defend my worldview with actual logic.

 

[Mr.Eko]

So, with all due respect, you wrote a lot of words, but did not answer my very direct question. It is not my intention to ensnare you. Based on your prior posts, I believed you were a person who is interested in a logic based approach to dealing with the current major issues facing us as a culture today. I was simply trying to narrow down where we can agree and where we disagree. It was never my intention to embarrass or entrap you, only to see what logical process you used to derive your conclusions and see if we can discuss where we disagree. I hope that makes sense.

I was going back to a moral question as where you derive your moral compass will make a great deal of difference on our conversation. If you do not believe in a God or any higher moral standard and believe solely in Darwinian evolution, then you cannot believe in absolute morality and therefore, whatever the majority of man says is moral. If you do believe in a higher source of transcendent morality, then where do you derive that morality, who gives it, and how do we use that in forming our society, if at all.

To put it simply, how do you define good and evil? This is not an unwinnable scenario if you have a firm logical basis. It is only unwinnable if your ultimate conclusion is not backed by sound logic. I would love to have an actual logical discussion with you as I believe it is very important, especially in this day and age, to be able to discuss these hot button issues with those with whom we disagree without resorting to mere feelings or wants as to the ultimate conclusion, but based on sound logic and an appreciation for the other's point of view. So, if you would like to answer my questions, I would welcome additional discussion. If you do not feel the desire or need to, that is fine. Just know I am ready, willing and extremely able to defend my worldview with actual logic.

Mike: please restate any questions?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Mike: please restate any questions?

LMAO! Dude you want to 'circle back' more than the commie chick press secretary.

 

[instaGATOR]

Spiderman is woke garbage, save your money.

The best TV show (1993-98) since the original (1960's) Star Trek.

Both addressed problems in society using science fiction, that could not be addressed up front. There is no way that B-5 could be produced in today's Rat controlled environment, in both the Socialist DC cesspool, or in it's twin brother, Socialist Hollywood.

They rerun Star Trek. They even still rerun Lucy. So with the mostly crap on TV today, why not reruns of Babylon Five?
Watch it and you'll soon discovery why they won't let in on the air again now....

The originator of B-5, J. Michael Straczynski was not only a genius (imo), he now looks like a clairvoyant when you look at what is happening in America today. I own the complete set, and it's the best DVD money I've every spent. It should be required viewing for today's youth. (available on Amazon and elsewhere)

Mary M. RoeTop Contributor: Cross-Stitch
5.0 out of 5 stars And So It Begins...
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2017
Verified Purchase
Start to finish one of the greatest series of all time. I've seen them all, the Star Treks, the Star Gates, the Battle Stars, etc. but this saga really grabbed you. The cohesion of the story is something that no other American Science Fiction ever pulled off. You come to deeply care for them all, alien and human, you see their flaws and how they rise above those flaws to become more than their promise.