Excuse me.

That's Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy.

Serotonin said:

---

I 100% get your point that there are many examples of one parent (or other non 'norm') households where kids are better than in many two parent households. But what is ideal in individual exceptions =/= what is ideal when scaled to society. Once all options become equal to the norm, there is no longer a norm.

Perfect example is the loosening of divorce laws and legalizing abortion. These were framed as matters of freedom / individual rights but they create second-order (and beyond) societal effects: lots of dudes just simply abandoned their fatherly responsibilities. After all, marriage and fatherhood are now a personal lifestyle option, not a social obligation.

So out of wedlock births have gone from 5% to 40% in roughly the last half century. This is toxic for society.

---

The norm that I'm proposing scaled to societal level is parents who are loving, kind, supportive, yadda yadda yadda. I'm proposing we consider a person's ability to be a good family member or good parent based on their character, generosity, honesty, and whats in their heart rather than something relatively superficial in comparison.

Divorce and abortion are related topics, but its a complete diversion from what I'm saying here. And I obviously don't see trends of higher rates of single parents homes or births out of wedlock / committed relationships as a positive.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

I 100% get your point that there are many examples of one parent (or other non 'norm') households where kids are better than in many two parent households. But what is ideal in individual exceptions =/= what is ideal when scaled to society. Once all options become equal to the norm, there is no longer a norm.

Perfect example is the loosening of divorce laws and legalizing abortion. These were framed as matters of freedom / individual rights but they create second-order (and beyond) societal effects: lots of dudes just simply abandoned their fatherly responsibilities. After all, marriage and fatherhood are now a personal lifestyle option, not a social obligation.

So out of wedlock births have gone from 5% to 40% in roughly the last half century. This is toxic for society.

---

The norm that I'm proposing scaled to societal level is parents who are loving, kind, supportive, yadda yadda yadda. I'm proposing we consider a person's ability to be a good family member or good parent based on their character, generosity, honesty, and whats in their heart rather than something relatively superficial in comparison.

Divorce and abortion are related topics, but its a complete diversion from what I'm saying here. And I obviously don't see trends of higher rates of single parents homes or births out of wedlock / committed relationships as a positive.

---

Isn't this only meaningful if these characteristics are a good that the child needs? For instance kids who are adopted have issues from not being in the home of their biological parents; all of them know they have a mother and father. How does character bridge the intentional denial of both a mother and father figure in a second chance situation?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

There are huge swaths of philosophy that are devoted to trying to extract morality without God. Atheism doesn't demand dudeism. Its pretty apparent that not only do you believe in atheism but also blank slatism and that the individual has no duty to society or a duty to pursue virtue. The sum total of this worldview is complete collapse of society. Your own fatalism is used against you.

---

This is not a correct reflection of what I believe. This is the frustrating and sometimes I feel like I spend half my time on this board fighting against things I never said. Is it that you just hate me so much that you can't read what I write without conflating it with everything else you hate? Help me understand so I can communicate better.

Quote:

---

I'm glad you have a wife and kids and looks like all the trappings of the good life but seriously you're going to defend all the points you do on this board as virtuous positions to your kids? Its equally okay to have premarital sex, have as many sexual partners as they'd like, pursue whatever consumerism they want? Divorce? Cheat? Lie? Steal? They don't have to get married to raise a family? You'd support transgenderism and its anti-fascism corner for your own kids? Support all of these as virtues as equally good as the obvious virtues they are in opposition to?

The funny part is, the more you divulge about yourself the more you prove you live within a christian construct but refuse to acknowledge it. I guarantee you if your daughter one day says she's shacking up with an older guy who openly does drugs, dabbles in the occult, supports antifa, has been arrested multiple times and was already married and divorced you'd say nothing like what you do on these threads about all of these views are equally valid.

---

I have my personal beliefs about what is good and I have my beliefs about how to treat others. Lets use multiple sexual partners as the example. I have no interest in sleeping around and, for me, I do not see it as a 'good'. I know plenty of people who slept around (mostly in their younger days cuz me and my friend group are starting to get old). And many of them are wonderful people and currently in committed relationships and good parents. I don't see 'having slept with multiple partners' as some disqualifier for being a good person. There are many people who have slept around and are good people. You don't have to agree with that. You are free to be as judgmental as you like.

I am curious as to when I supported cheating, lying, and stealing. Or perhaps this is more of you projecting your bias against my worldview onto me. Again, help me understand why you think I support cheating, lying, and stealing as equally valid values.

The second paragraph . . . I don't know if I should laugh or be mad. I have acknowledged over and over on this board how Christianity has impacted me. And despite that, you continue to ignore it and just make assumptions about how I discard that part of my life. If I had a daughter shacking up with an older guy doing the things you mention, I would absolutely interject. I would because I see something sinister in old guys going after very young girls, I do not support hard drugs, I don't know what you mean by the 'occult', if by Antifa you are suggesting violent political activism - then I'm very much on record against that, why was this hypothetical person arrested? murder, rape, armed robbery, grand theft, parking tickets, running a red light? You confuse my refusal to condemn people as 'bad' because of mistake or for differing beliefs with condoning those actions or beliefs. This is why I can dismiss basically this entire post as all strawman.

For us to have a discussion, I need you to read what I write and stop assuming I'm some lawless, 'anything goes' anarchist, value-less, Satan worshipping heathen just because I don't agree with you. Otherwise, we are both wasting our time.

Quote:

---

About your view on the afterlife, it is again pure cope that you came up with on your own. You might as well have a personal theory on gravity or electricity you devoutly hold to be true and are willing to put your own life on the line to test it. No story of people who have gone to the afterlife and returned, or from saints coming back down to warn us say anything about this idea of you getting to just go 'whoopsie - I see you're real, God, I've done nothing to honor you or in your name. Let me into heaven'. That defeats the whole purpose of this life. You've done basically 0 inquiry into world religion and its claims. Again, Christianity doesn't say oh look at these other groups doing signs and wonders - they're lying about it. Christians go - yes demons have some powers as well, those people are deceived by demonic powers. Yahweh is the God of Gods and the creator God, but angels and demons are also gods. They have wills and powers. Look closer at what they're doing and what they're honoring.

---

Gravity and electromagnetism can be tested and poked and prodded and agreed upon independently by anyone and everyone.

Near death experiences and people coming back from heaven or hell are believable to people who already believe them to be true. I'm skeptical of these things because they offer nothing like verifiable evidence and they ignore the influence of brain chemistry during trauma, subjectivity, and cultural influence. One of the differences between you and me here is that I'm open to being wrong. I don't know everything about 'the world religions and its claims' the way you apparently do. That is one of the reasons I'm here. To learn about your viewpoint - preferably without

Its clear you don't like my take on my response to 'what if I'm wrong'? I don't need you to like it. But, if you are correct about God, then who judges me when I die? You? Or God? Assuming the latter, would I be out of line to tell you to stay in your lane?

Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy said:

---

" If your God rewards followers for blind submission and tortures free thought"

Kurt, do you actually believe that?

Would you describe yourself as a humanist?

Also this is a really cool discussion.

---

No, I don't believe in this type of God.

If we assume that there is a God, then the example above is an attempt to undermine the idea of a petty God that demands worship from bad evidence, judges people against honest mistakes, or who tortures people for 'guessing' wrong.

I find that when you ask a million Christians about God and the nature of the afterlife, you get a million different answers. Many answers may be similar, but there is still very much significant variation. I can't disprove any of these versions of God, but I can try to point out what seems like absurdity where I see it.

Humanist is roughly accurate.

AGC said:

---

Isn't this only meaningful if these characteristics are a good that the child needs? For instance kids who are adopted have issues from not being in the home of their biological parents; all of them know they have a mother and father. How does character bridge the intentional denial of both a mother and father figure in a second chance situation?

---

Adoption isn't about intentionally denying a child a mother or father figure. It's about stepping in when the ideal (biological parents) isn't possible.

The best "second chance" doesn't have to be a replication of a traditional model, rather its about giving the child a safe, loving environment shaped by people with the right values. And the character of the adopting persons is what makes that environment possible.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

I 100% get your point that there are many examples of one parent (or other non 'norm') households where kids are better than in many two parent households. But what is ideal in individual exceptions =/= what is ideal when scaled to society. Once all options become equal to the norm, there is no longer a norm.

Perfect example is the loosening of divorce laws and legalizing abortion. These were framed as matters of freedom / individual rights but they create second-order (and beyond) societal effects: lots of dudes just simply abandoned their fatherly responsibilities. After all, marriage and fatherhood are now a personal lifestyle option, not a social obligation.

So out of wedlock births have gone from 5% to 40% in roughly the last half century. This is toxic for society.

---

The norm that I'm proposing scaled to societal level is parents who are loving, kind, supportive, yadda yadda yadda. I'm proposing we consider a person's ability to be a good family member or good parent based on their character, generosity, honesty, and whats in their heart rather than something relatively superficial in comparison.

Divorce and abortion are related topics, but its a complete diversion from what I'm saying here. And I obviously don't see trends of higher rates of single parents homes or births out of wedlock / committed relationships as a positive.

---

Isn't this only meaningful if these characteristics are a good that the child needs? For instance kids who are adopted have issues from not being in the home of their biological parents; all of them know they have a mother and father. How does character bridge the intentional denial of both a mother and father figure in a second chance situation?

---

What in the world does this mean?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Isn't this only meaningful if these characteristics are a good that the child needs? For instance kids who are adopted have issues from not being in the home of their biological parents; all of them know they have a mother and father. How does character bridge the intentional denial of both a mother and father figure in a second chance situation?

---

Adoption isn't about intentionally denying a child a mother or father figure. It's about stepping in when the ideal (biological parents) isn't possible.

The best "second chance" doesn't have to be a replication of a traditional model, rather its about giving the child a safe, loving environment shaped by people with the right values. And the character of the adopting persons is what makes that environment possible.

---

Sure, but surrogacy by gays certainly does. Does character overcome that?

But digging in to our differences, I believe an adoptive mother and father with good character are the closest models an orphan can have to deceased parents of good character. The assumption inherent is that man and woman are materially different and having one of each present is beneficial and necessary (should you disagree one of each is necessary please object here; likewise if you think they're not beneficial).

Moving on, do you agree with this idea: a hetero couple of good character are always superior to a gay couple of good character? If so, should it not always be prioritized for the good of the child, and treated as the gold standard to follow? If not, it sounds like queer theory, that gender and sexuality are just social constructs. What would you call it, if not that, this idea that men and women are interchangeable (this is what it sounds like to me)?

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

I 100% get your point that there are many examples of one parent (or other non 'norm') households where kids are better than in many two parent households. But what is ideal in individual exceptions =/= what is ideal when scaled to society. Once all options become equal to the norm, there is no longer a norm.

Perfect example is the loosening of divorce laws and legalizing abortion. These were framed as matters of freedom / individual rights but they create second-order (and beyond) societal effects: lots of dudes just simply abandoned their fatherly responsibilities. After all, marriage and fatherhood are now a personal lifestyle option, not a social obligation.

So out of wedlock births have gone from 5% to 40% in roughly the last half century. This is toxic for society.

---

The norm that I'm proposing scaled to societal level is parents who are loving, kind, supportive, yadda yadda yadda. I'm proposing we consider a person's ability to be a good family member or good parent based on their character, generosity, honesty, and whats in their heart rather than something relatively superficial in comparison.

Divorce and abortion are related topics, but its a complete diversion from what I'm saying here. And I obviously don't see trends of higher rates of single parents homes or births out of wedlock / committed relationships as a positive.

---

Isn't this only meaningful if these characteristics are a good that the child needs? For instance kids who are adopted have issues from not being in the home of their biological parents; all of them know they have a mother and father. How does character bridge the intentional denial of both a mother and father figure in a second chance situation?

---

What in the world does this mean?

---

Pretty straightforward. Every kid knows what they're missing when they lose their parents, and it manifests different ways depending on when and how they lose them.

By "having isssues" you mean, in many cases (such as my wife), having an infinitely better life than they would have had with the two jackwagons that procreated?

Macarthur said:

---

By "having isssues" you mean, in many cases (such as my wife), having an infinitely better life than they would have had with the two jackwagons that procreated?

---

I'm sorry for your wife's treatment. I will pray for her. However, we're discussing standards and healthy is the one that I propose as best (as in, not jack wagons), with healthy adoptive ones modeling a biological family being the next best.

The question of "what even is a union" was nagging at me. The answer is in Federalist No 39. My notes:

The intent was to have a republic, which means that the government gets its power from the people, either directly or indirectly, and is run by officials who serve for a limited time or as long as they act with virtue. It's essential that this power truly comes from the whole society, not just a privileged few. Otherwise a relatively small group of elites could claim to be a republic while acting like tyrants. As long as leaders are chosen by the people and serve under fair conditions, the government can truly be said to be republican.

The Constitution created a government that is both federal and national in simultaneous different ways. It's federal in its foundation because it was approved by the people of each state individually, not by a single national vote. Each state acted as a sovereign entity in ratifying it.

However, parts of the government operate in a national way. The House of Representatives is based on population and represents the people directly, which is national. The Senate, on the other hand, derived its powers from the States as political and coequal societies in equal proportion, through appointment, which is federal.

The President is elected through a mix of both systems: the states vote, but their influence is based partly on population and partly on equal representation.

When it comes to how the government acts, it mostly operates on individuals (national), but in some cases, like disputes involving states, it acts on states as political bodies (federal). In terms of power, the government is limited to specific areas listed in the Constitution. Everything else remains under the control of the states, which makes it federal by scope. Even though the federal government has a court to settle disputes between state and national powers, this doesn't make it supreme in all things, it just helps avoid conflict between states. So overall the Constitution created a hybrid system: federal in how it was formed and in the limits of its power, national in how it operates in day-to-day business, and a mix of both in how its leaders are chosen and how amendments are made.

In other words, a "union" was neither a state nor a confederacy, a blend designed to be neither.

Admirable and probably genius, but perhaps (again with the benefit of hindsight) ultimately unstable. We deviated from this to a single national (by Madison's use of the word) government - if you read No 39 you can see:

- now senate and congress are both national in character
- presidency is only notionally via states - now national in character
- impeachment almost never happens, so political appointees / judges are derived from a national framing
- the states have totally lost their respective position, so we're national in character
- the federal government scope has become all encompassing so it is now supreme national

I also chuckled at Federalist 84 - which basically says what good is it to have a bill of rights? What if you say - "the liberty of press should be inviolably preserved". This begs the question of "liberty" and "press" and immediately gives license for evasion around those, while also implying that the government might have had the power to regulate the press anyway, which it doesn't. See: 2A. The point comes back to - in the end, regardless of any "fine declarations" put in any constitution these things all depend on public opinion and the general spirit of the people, because (according to Hamilton) this is the basis of our rights.

I think the Declaration of Independence was a troublesome document. We would have been much better off it was explicit that the rights of the people came from the people and not from God. Saying that with a deist mindframe - in other words, decoupling the idea of human value and worth from the Incarnation - unmoored them from any real worth or value. Far better to be practical about it, because then you can see: if you change the character of the people out in a republican framework, the government by necessity changes character.

The government we saw on display at the funeral doesn't work.

Quote:

---

The Constitution created a government that is both federal and national in simultaneous different ways. It's federal in its foundation because it was approved by the people of each state individually, not by a single national vote. Each state acted as a sovereign entity in ratifying it.

However, parts of the government operate in a national way. The House of Representatives is based on population and represents the people directly, which is national. The Senate, on the other hand, derived its powers from the States as political and coequal societies in equal proportion, through appointment, which is federal.

In other words, a "union" was neither a state nor a confederacy, a blend designed to be neither.

---

I'd have to read (or maybe re-read?) that paper again. I think I have in the past but it would have been a minutes. That said, I think I agree with this takeaway. Something truly unique, and not a single nation-state that they left behind in Europe. It allowed for local populaces to handle all issues not designated to the national or federal aspects of the government.

Quote:

---

Admirable and probably genius, but perhaps (again with the benefit of hindsight) ultimately unstable. We deviated from this to a single national (by Madison's use of the word) government - if you read No 39 you can see:

- now senate and congress are both national in character
- presidency is only notionally via states - now national in character
- impeachment almost never happens, so political appointees / judges are derived from a national framing
- the states have totally lost their respective position, so we're national in character
- the federal government scope has become all encompassing so it is now supreme national

---

This I also agree with. We've definitely shifted from the original structure of our country's founding. I would strongly prefer to go back to what it was, allowing for differences across local populaces, but keeping united priorities in terms of national defense and economy: subsidiarity. Maybe it is ultimately unstable in the political realm, maybe not. It works for the EO and the Catholic Church's (although with obvious variations). If it is unstable, it's only due to human desire to accumulate more power, which I think makes basically every human institution ultimately unstable. Some just last longer than others.

Practically speaking, I agree it's unlikely we'll ever walk back the powers assumed by FedGov. It would either require a coup, or the government voluntarily ceding power. Technically we could have a SC that could unwind a boatload of bad precedent like it did with Roe, but I know it's unlikely. Should that never happen, then I'd agree that pushing for Christian Nationalism is the most logical next step.

It's not comparable to the ecclesial structure because the church is an absolute hierarchy and the USG derives its power in theory from the people.