Why men won't marry you

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
AnnaBenedetti et al. won't be happy with you. :p


kmo is my friend, and he's a good man. He knows he doesn't have to agree with me and he knows I don't expect it as some kind of price of friendship. Have your conversation with him Trad, it won't change a thing in my friendship with him.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
This is flat out moral relativism.
No. It's what is, not how we justify it. An Islamic state believes its laws are grounded in the absolute. We believe that there are self evident truths and rights, derived from an unnamed Creator, that we're born with. None of us can objectively demonstrate the truth of our propositions.

You can have absolutely no argument, e.g., against so called "honor killings" being legal in the Middle East (presupposing that they are legal) or against forced abortions in China.
You don't mean that. You mean if I loose my hold on a claim of absolute truth I have no more right than the next fellow. Of course at that point I have as much right as any fellow and no inherent obligation to honor the wishes of any other.

Your claim was that the State only should use "the least severe infringement on right."
No, which is why you should either quote me or not speak for me. What I wrote was, "The punishment advanced is the least cruel infringement upon right that we can envision while still carrying the punitive weight of social/legal censure." I'm explaining something to you. I'm not originating it.

Our law has boundaries for what can be done punishing in the name of the state and that it doesn't adopt an eye for an eye as the operating principle. We use means aimed at reformation and reflection, as well as punishment in the degree of impairment of rights and absent state sanctioned torture. If that disappoints our sense of justice then I'd suggest you examine the why of it.

...How about "he deserves to die"?
You're entitled. It's a long argument with a lot of facets. It isn't, however, more than tangential to my point and it deserves more than a sidebar.

Nonetheless, if someone is sufficiently trained, skilled, etc., and, being a private citizen, and not an agent of the State...? He may use potentially lethal force to defend himself, but he may not specifically shoot to kill.
No one sufficiently trained in a lethal action will tell you that he can with any degree of certainty, in an adrenaline fueled situation, control his biological response sufficiently to accomplish a less than lethal response with any degree of certainty. He will more often endanger himself in the attempt. He isn't required to risk his safety on the chance of saving the life of someone he believes means him lethal harm.

I don't really see the problem in this case.
It's a prima facie case that someone wronged should not be judge and jury. I'm more concerned with the operating principle than whether or not you can fashion a particular hypothetical to meet your ends.

Then the rest of your point seems pretty irrelevant to me
.
It's only important that I speak the truth to you as best I understand it. What you do with it or how you value it is your business.

For what it's worth, I'd like further to point out, TH, in support of what I am saying, that, at least historically, the West has recognized so called "crimes of passion...
Do you realize what the mitigation actually was? An aberrant mental state. It's not a stamp of approval on the behavior.

What I'm saying isn't really too far of a jump from what the law already recognizes.
There's a world of difference between recognizing that in a moment a man or woman may be overwhelmed and act in an unpremeditated rage, for which they will receive a reduced sentence of incarceration, and sustaining the notion that the still illegal and punishable action is a good idea.

Justice is that virtue whereby each is given according to his due. It may also be defined as proportionate equality.
The law does what it can, where it can, to put the victim in the position he should have found himself but for the action of the offender and to compensate the victim for damages while punishing the criminal.

To my ears, that's just a cop-out way to say: "In point of fact, my principles are completely at variance with what Moses prescribed, but I can't admit it, because I have 'Christian' under my screen name and avatar."
I'm not concerned or responsible for your ears. My answer was plain enough. Embellish in any way that makes you feel better, but you still don't actually speak for me.

I simply disagree...
Okay.

Not analogous. Rape is intrinsically evil. Beating somebody is not.
Rather, sex isn't intrinsically evil. Rape is. Beating someone isn't intrinsically evil. Battery is.

Your whole argument presupposes a "moral equality," so to speak between State and private citizen.
No idea what you mean by that.

Again, this is a modern notion.
Not really. The modern notion of right is mostly about including the woman, though men have been forbidden to act certain ways toward their wives in antiquity and Christianity has some fairly strong things to say about how we are to behave. Ways inconsistent with berating and degrading and treating a wife as property.

Beyond that a big helping of "And?" Antibiotics are new. What, you want leeches? :plain:

Even as late as Kant, we find him writing that the right of a husband to his wife is like that of a right which one has over a thing, i.e., a piece of property, that one may rightly say of his wife "she is mine; she belongs to me." Nor is this misogynistic; the wife can claim likewise over her husband.
Well if Kant said it...then Kant is proof that intelligent men, even brilliant men can be limited by the bias of their age and culture.

I wouldn't, perhaps, speak in those terms, but the modern description of marriage simply seems too weak to me.
So you're only partially corrupted or partially enlightened.

As always, your words are a constant testimony to legal positivism. :nono:
In the same sense a scientist is an advocate for gravity.

My personal system of justice and government has Christ at its head, literally. Absent that our imperfect form will do.
 
Last edited:

elohiym

Well-known member
Where do you see mercy in that passage?

It's implicit in the idea that the government is God's agent executing His judgement on earth. Mercy is part of His judgment. The sword of government can change over history in same way swords can be beaten into a plowshares. First you have a death penalty, then you don't. Like that.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Oh great, we're on the subject of the most ridiculously misinterpreted passage in the New Testament :rolleyes:




How about this one :think:

Acts 5:29
We ought to obey God rather than men.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
James 2:3 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

I fully grant the point. I simply don't think that this applies at the level of the State. I don't view the State and private individual as being "the same thing," so to speak.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
I fully grant the point. I simply don't think that this applies at the level of the State. I don't view the State and private individual as being "the same thing," so to speak.

Well, consider that God gave us a people's republic, so what we will, as individual Christians, can be codified if it can be framed in a publicly logical and acceptable way.

We no longer look to a king (other than God), we look at each other as co-reagents.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Well, consider that God gave us a people's republic, so what we will, as individual Christians, can be codified if it can be framed in a publicly logical and acceptable way.

We no longer look to a king (other than God), we look at each other as co-reagents.

^
I notice that it's mainly women and feminists who make this argument time and time again. It's because the country's laws give women more privilege and promise over men, and they know it. We live in a society where women's issues are priority and men's are ignored and systematically thrown out.

If they were stripped of those special rights, they'd be telling a whole different story just like during first wave feminism :rolleyes:
 

elohiym

Well-known member
James 2:3 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

I fully grant the point. I simply don't think that this applies at the level of the State.

The State is God's agent and therefore must conform to God's will.

God's will, as demonstrated by Christ the King of Kings, is to show mercy.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
^
I notice that it's mainly women and feminists who make this argument time and time again. It's because the country's laws give women more privilege and promise over men, and they know it.
Well, no. You're mistaken. The law gives them a thing mostly unknown before it, equality in right. Why that should bother you should actually bother you.

We live in a society where women's issues are priority and men's are ignored and systematically thrown out.
Complete nonsense, which is why when queried for particulars, as I did not that long ago, you don't provide them.

If they were stripped of those special rights,
Which they don't have and you haven't remotely or particularly illustrated.

they'd be telling a whole different story just like during first wave feminism :rolleyes:
Speaking of stories...
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, no. You're mistaken. The law gives them a thing mostly unknown before it, equality in right. Why that should bother you should actually bother you.

Complete nonsense, which is why when queried for particulars, as I did not that long ago, you don't provide them.

Which they don't have and you haven't remotely or particularly illustrated.

Speaking of stories...

Details, details.

When no facts are to be had, there are multitudes of stories to be told. :shocked:
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Details, details.

When no facts are to be had, there are multitudes of stories to be told. :shocked:

I've gone over the details ten times over on this site, I'm not going to explain or detail them again. Every time, they were systematically thrown out- domestic court bias for example.. it was met with basically 'deal with it, poor baby'. But on any subject on women, if I stated the same I would be outright called a misogynist.

Funny how you few actually are the people I talk about, and you haven't caught onto it yet :think:
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
To explain what sod was grasping at. I wrote, in answering Trad, that the law doesn't and shouldn't, in administering punishment, seek to mirror the actions of the offender. In response to his idea of beating someone who committed a battery I noted the less comfortable parallel of raping the rapist as an illustration of the problem with the principle as a principle of state action.

Some people need the crap beat out of them, and be honest on this one, do you feel bad for a child rapist who got raped in prison?

Be honest again, and tell me if you think that happening is deserved deep within you?
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Some people need the crap beat out of them, and be honest on this one, do you feel bad for a child rapist who got raped in prison?

Be honest again, and tell me if you think that happening is deserved deep within you?

He would certainly deserve it, in some broad sense of the word "deserve."

It would, however, be unjust on the part of the one who does it, nor is it permissible for the State to command rape as a punishment.

Imprisoning, beating (and, in general, subjection to physical suffering) and killing, on the other hand, is perfectly licit, at least in principle, when it comes to punishing criminals.
 
Top