doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thought For The Day........

Maybe, it's too bad that they give up so easily. Clearly, you're talking about worldly choices that go poof and vanish with your last breath. Clearly, they are talking about the hope that your loved ones have the faith that there's something more than what you're saying there is.

I'll reiterate a point. It is the resulting subjective morality of any belief system that is important, not the basis of the belief. People are free to believe whatever they want, as long as they don't inflict their beliefs on others against their will.

"...as long as they dont inflict their beliefs on others against their will."

How did you square that belief with a career in the military?

"Consciousness will continue on some level, and I'll be pleasantly surprised..."

What makes you believe you'll be 'pleasantly surprised'? Is it possible you will be un-pleasantly surprised?



________________
Philosophy is bullshit. Lonny Rhodes

Hmmmm. War is certainly an infliction. It's a matter if the war is "just" or not, a subjective determination.

Well, I may not be pleasantly surprised. I'd have to say that I certainly hope that I will be!

Who decided to put 'In god we trust' on the money?

D.

Subjective covers a lot of ground, easily gives social progressives all the justification they need, if they even decide to play along with the 'rules'. I wonder if the objective is 'better'. What would subjective racial equality be, a lie, random luck?

Chances are we vote for a 'leader' and representatives to inflict. They hire and appoint other folks to inflict more. Maybe, we need a basis that's endowed like it's written, rather than adjusted when someone feels like their subjective morality is better than the next.

A really smart guy D. They might have loyal supporters, but very few folks trust the jobs numbers, fed reserve, the speeches, congress, and to reach across the aisle, CO2.

Hence the need for the Constitution. Which prevents the sociopathic application of Subjective Morality that results in a person or group of people inflicting their beliefs on others against their will.

This is what has happened in an "Objective" sense, with the government confiscating freedom and awarding it to their political supporters.

Calling a Welfare program an Anti-Poverty program is subjective, since it results in the creation of poverty and dependency, in the "Objective Reality" sense. It also creates Statist Neoslavery, as free and equal citizens are judged to be guilty of an economic crime, resulting in having their freedom confiscated and awarded to others determined to be "entitled" to it, according to subjective statist religious morality.

Calling Obamacare the "Affordable Care Act" is also subjective, as the objective reality is that it is certainly not affordable, anything but, and essentially degrades the standards of Health Care in America. It actually is a massive expansion of Statist Neoslavey.

I looked at a Canadian dollar bill, and did not see "In God We Trust" on it. I did notice a picture of the Queen of England. Why would you people have the graven image of the monarch from another country on your currency? Why would an atheist such as yourself even care if the word "God" appears on the money from another country? Are you one of those people who goes into a swoon when someone from the British Royal family visits? Shouldn't you be more concerned that a dollar bill still says "One Dollar" when it is actually worth only five cents due to inflation?

You remind me a lot of the Great King Brown... critically sticking your nose into our business when you should be concerned about things in your own country... such as incredibly high gasoline taxes, the waning market for pulp wood, restrictive gun control, and a Long Gun Registry that has not been dismantled as prescribed by law in Quebec.

You have a Constitution, Ken. Your point is that it's not working for people who are free to believe whatever they want, "as long as they don't inflict their beliefs on others against their will." That's impossible because of the enduring national debate on the meaning of liberty within originalist and changing interpretations of the constitution. Majorities rule in democratic societies.

Almost from the beginning, how the fundamental written law was to be read and implemented has divided the country: Jefferson's notions of "strict construction" or "fair" and "reasonable" interpretations recommended by John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton. The balance between legislative choice and constitutional constraint was to keep order without destroying liberty.

The heated debate continues to this day because the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian positions are seen by their proponents as either ending up with the constitution as a magnificent, ossifying structure unfit for use, or courts reducing it to a blank paper with constructions denying nothing to successive, expansionist governments.

These ultimately unsatisfying schools of interpretation won't be reconciled in the lifetimes of members. Manipulation of the electorate remains more important than responsible management of public affairs. The horse went over the hill long ago, Ken. As you said, an age-old story. Notions of any political party or candidate changing it are pure ignorance.