What was the last thing you did for your country?


#81

I’m not going to try to address Alaska Slim’s wall of text by numbered lines (I’ll get to Phillip’s below), but address it I shall (for how long, unknown; I may be a lot more hardheaded than Bobjam when it comes to persisting in a debate, but I am getting tired of this merry-go-round).

It amazes me that you seem to think that rule of law must be at least partially divorced from principle. Rule of law becomes nothing more than tyranny if it is NOT guided by principle. Sacrificing principle on the alter of pragmatism does this; pragmatism is a lot more readily rationalized to whatever you want than principle.

You claim drinking got better, and you provided a link. I’ll admit I didn’t look at it, and that I don’t have links for my information. But for one thing, some of us get RELIABLE info from sources other than the internet, and that’s what I’ve done; I’ve read books and listened to discussion and news programs on the radio from sources I trust. For another, I know from your debate on ranges of combat aircraft that you cherry-pick sources. And you refused to acknowledge the MULTIPLE sources I cited to refute your argument. So pardon me (or not) if I don’t trust your info.

So universal agreement by the public is necessary for rule of law to matter? Then murder vs. porn is NOT apples and oranges, because thousands of murders happen every year- not counting abortion. Do you also regard abortion as an issue to be regulated instead of banned because of lack of concensus?

I did NOT say that “each measure of porn created is universally exploitation” (at least by the physical realm). I AM saying that it’s universally harmful. And I stand by it firmly. The world may not (or may) recognize it, but God definitely does.

No, not zealotry, although evil inspires zealotrous oppostion to it. I HAVE considered the consequences. Both ways. You’re in denial about the harm, no matter that you can find links to say otherwise (you can find a link to “prove” anything you want to; or to deny it (I repeat what I said about your penchant for cherry picking)).

1 I believe that the Bible is often translated or interpreted poorly, but I believe it is essentially true. I believe that anything written outside of the Bible that is in contradiction to it is not to be trusted.
2 This statement about Christian values being too left-liberal surprised me until I figured out (I think) The context. I submit that Catholicism does not define the whole of Christianity (I could open a BIG can of worms there); I myself am a Wesleyan-Arminian evangelical protestant (Nazarene is my particular denomination). And I agree that Pope Francis is questionable at best.
3 Essentially accurate.

4 I don’t point out any specific sources, if that’s what you mean. But as I mentioned to AS, I get a lot of my info from off the internet where I can’t link it. News features on our regional Christian radio network (Family Life Network) and Focus on the Family’s radio program provide a lot of it (websites for both often provide links to other sources when the topic or related is discussed). As indicated, I’ve also read a fair amount about a variety of sex-related issues; both psychological and socialogical.
5 I don’t have studies on hand, but if I recall correctly (I think I do), they’ve been done by people who know what they’re doing and are honest about it (sorry to be so vague; I’m going by what I remember being discussed). But I also believe (although one has to be careful about how one applies this) that some facts fit together so neatly that it would be unwise to dismiss it. I’ll admit that I don’t know how best to articulate everything I’m thinking about this issue, but I’ll at least suggest that I’m not pulling what I believe about it out of thin air.
6 Abuse and porn are two separate subjects as far as it goes, but in my porn viewing days (mercifully firmly in the past), I saw several sites that showed girls (multiple girls (different occasions) for some of them) being manipulated with lies, and/or being mistreated (verbally and physically/sexually) once they were committed or convinced (lied to) that they were committed. I call that abuse, even if it wasn’t technically (and I’m not 100% sure it wasn’t) illegal. As to porn being hurtful, I submit that anything that distracts from God’s design for sex (loving act between husband and wife) is hurtful, as is all sin.

7 Again, it’s a matter of where the info is. To be clear, I’m not so much concerned with “winning” the debate as I am encouraging you (and other readers) to research the subject yourself, and not just online. Some libraries (especially church libraries, I think) will have good books or periodical articles on the subject with source information). I do NOT recommend leftist sources for info on anything sexual.

8 The deep hurt I’m talking about is emotional/psychological. Again, I don’t have sources at my fingertips to link you to. But sex is intimate, and reaches to the very psyche of the individual. When that intimacy is cheap, it makes those exposed to it feel cheapened. And although I don’t know how to articulate it well, I submit that it’s not just fluff or junk science; it’s tangible.
9 Lung cancer and heart attacks caused or exacerbated by smoking is fully within your control; by not smoking. And I submit that the consequences of sin are far more harmful than lung cancer; an early death in this world is not to be compared with eternity in hell. Anything that encourages sin is an abomination (and is a sin itself).


#82

Nope. It’s because law is not something you use to protect people from themselves. This is principled.

There is no proficient enforcement model for such laws. People can willfully break them, without anyone knowing or reporting that they were broken in the first place.

This weakens rule of law, to the point of encouraging people to organize to break yet other laws. This is a known, observable effect.

The problem is that you’re trying to premise a different reality that we don’t live in. A better world that doesn’t exist, and cannot be made to exist, because of the human condition.

We have limits to law we have to acknowledge, and freedoms that people have that we must observe. No matter how much we may disprove of the way they use them.

You mean where I quoted multiple sources, you quoted one, and were ultimately proven wrong when it came to the original point of the discussion?

Because the F-15E doesn’t have the range to do anything more than a one-way trip from Djibouti, to Benghazi, without support?

You kept changing the criteria: whether it was loaded, whether it had to be a one-way or both-way trip, and that made things confusing. You even tried to alter the discussion point to one about a specific range number, instead of a range necessary to meet the original goal of flying back and forth between those two points.

Regardless; I was proven right, and you cannot, right now, quote any sources to me that will prove your side of that argument.

The F-15E could not operate at that distance and fly back without tanker support. Fact.

You were wrong, so quit with the conspiracy theories, quit suggesting the Air Force didn’t do its job that night, you have no right to suggest it. I don’t give a flying **** who you think you are. When you result to petty **** like this, you’re no better than the dozens of 9/11 truthers I’ve talked to.

A majority of people have to agree to observe the law, because law is partially a social construct. That shouldn’t surprise you.

If the community doesn’t affirm the law, things quickly fall into disarray, and you can even get what police would call “no-go zones”.

We have them right now, and they are due to laws currently on the books that are also unenforceable; laws that ruined the enforceability of other laws.

Other laws like murders. Their enforceability become collateral damage of lawmakers not understanding the limits of their powers. They create microcosmic meltdowns in the rule of law as a consequence of putting unenforceable laws on the books.

God also affirms the harm of drunkenness, and taking his name in vain.

Guess what’s still legal?

Try as you may, Fantasy Chaser, you cannot deny the fact that not every thing wrong has been made illegal, and for many of such things it’s for good reason.

For my part, I never once denied that Pornography causes harm. What I’m saying is that this doesn’t change the inherent limitations of law. Limitations you would have me believe don’t exist, setting off collateral harm you also pretend don’t exist, or inaccurately portray as “evil resistance”.

Law should be conserved for those things we can control, and only used to mitigate harms for those things we cannot.

There ought to be a law” is an understandable impulse, but it’s the Conservative who understands that the law cannot be used to right every wrong, and in a society compromised of free persons, each of whom we expect to guide themselves in this world; shouldn’t.


#83

BS. There are laws against murder. How many murders occur worldwide annually? Just because the law cannot stop ALL murders doesn’t mean that the law shouldn’t exist.


#84

Went on active duty orders last weekend, and performing two military funerals THIS weekend. I’m also preparing an application for commissioning in the Navy Reserve.


#85

@Fantasy_Chaser very well written response


#86

So, would you forbid homosexual sexual acts too? Or would you forbid showing homosexual acts or relationships for example in TV-shows like gay-sitcoms?

You might perceive me as liberal with respect to my attitude concerning sexual issues. But in this case I consider myself more as Libertarian. I want highest possible extent of freedom for each individual.
I do not have a very positive relation to sexuality, I think it’s by far overvalued and I do not want to make a big deal out of it. In my opinion government should keep out of people’s lives.


#87

If “keeping the government out of people’s lives” is defined by refusing to protect the Rights of the the innocent or weak from the Tyranny of those that are stronger then you are not a “Libertarian”, you are an advocate for Anarchy.

You also have not thought it through because under your system you would be at my Mercy since I can easily form a very strong and organized force; Governments have a valid role and ignorance of that fact leads only to violence and oppression.


#88

And putting up unenforceable laws, weakens law enforcement’s ability to enforce that law. Collateral damage from legaistlative malfience.

Not only do you have cops wasting time going after crimes that can’t be stopped, you create lawless areas, where no laws can be effectively enforced.

This is precisely what happened under Prohibition; it’s precisely why the homicide rate went through the roof in the 1920s. A black market formed to meet the demand for alcohol, organizations formed to undermine the police, entire areas of cities became lawless as a result.

Tit for tat, Cause & Effect.

If you don’t want lawlessness or dysfunction, you don’t write unenforceable laws. For all bad things the Government cannot control ( of which there are several ) , you simply write laws to mitigate the effects.

Just like with gun violence, or trans fats, or swearing. Government doesn’t control any of it, not even if they wrote a law about them.


#89

The homicide rate did not rise during Prohibition.

Teenage drinking did not rise during Prohibition.

Alcohol related violence did not rise during Prohibition.

All of these societal ills were reduced during Prohibition as well as domestic violence and instances of alcohol poisoning and mental illness.

The Black Market for alcohol was far less destructive to society than the problems that were prevelant before and after Prohibition by the legal sale of alcohol.

Prohibition did not criminalize alcohol consumption, only the production of alcohol for resale; home brewing for personal consumption was legal.

Prohibition was not a failure by any objective measure, when the use of a substance perverts a person’s ability to make responsible decisions regarding how their actions will affect others, it is entirely reasonable for society to regulate such substances to whatever degree is necessary to bring the threat to the innocent down to an acceptable level.

Doing so will always cause the irresponsible to protest, no responsible citizen should be concerned with such protestations; the childish create the need for such regulation and should be ignored by those forced to clean up the messes they make.


#90

Yes it did:

This is why the “Wets” ran campaigns against Prohibition, like these:


#91

So your convinced that the unassailable reputation of political campaigns for issues as truthful and of the highest integrity will serve as a solid foundation for your argument that Prohibition was a failure?

Everything I posted prior is a matter of fact, every alcohol related social issue was dramatically improved during Prohibition and no social issues were made worse as a result of Prohibition.

Here is another.
Organized crime and the violent nature of such existed before and after Prohibition. Attempts to blame Prohibition for organized “Black Market Crime” is a fairy tale.

Not one single gangster was put out of work as a result of Prohibition being repealed, which should be obvious since there is never a shortage of Markets that cannot be served at a profit by bypassing taxes and regulations created by governments.


#92

The problem is that this “eternity in hell”-argumentation works only on a religious basis. When I reproached: “You define which sacred writings should be accepted as the truth” you countered: “I believe [in Jesus]. I don’t tell people they have to believe”. But on the other side you insist that everyone should follow Christian rules.
So, you want to command people to follow rules which are based on a doctrine they do not necessarily believe in. Didn’t you see a problem here?

One more problem is arising here: Ultra-radicals would say that as a Christ you have to go to church every Sunday, to avoid hellfire. So if we argue hellfire based, didn’t we consequently have to force people by law to go to church every Sunday?

What you say is: You have evidence that porn will cause great damage in everyone, but you don’t have this evidence at hand. So we can not examine how cogent this evidence is.
At the same time you yourself said to Alaska Slim: “no matter that you can find links to say otherwise (you can find a link to “prove” anything you want to; or to deny it”.
Even if some “scientists” claim that they had proven something this doesn’t have to be true. If you want to forbid something that (allegedly) damages people deeply, you should be able to show evidence that this damage really occurs inevitably. If you could prove this for porn, I maybe would agree in a porn-prohibition.

The second problem is that you consider the whole issue in a very absolutistic manner. I said, I can agree that some people may be hurt by porn, but I still believe that many will not be hurt. As opposed to this, you still do not admit that there COULD be people that would not be hurt deeply.
Even if you know SOME girls that were hurt by pornography, why do you make the generalization that ALL people in contact with porn will be hurt?

This statement is a little bit self-righteous – isn’t it?

Do you defend people’s right to buy and eat fast-food and sweets? Yes?
-> You refuse to protect them from Tyranny of “hear attacks causing industry”,
-> you are an advocate for Anarchy.

Do you defend people’s right to smoke? Yes?
-> You refuse to protect them from the Tyranny of “lung-cancer causing industry”,
-> you are an advocate for Anarchy.

If you do not define the libertarian ideal as the maximization of freedom and self-responsibility - how else would you define it?
There are radical Libertarians who even want to legalize heroine – That’s going too far, even for me. But heroine is a drug that causes inevitable damage in everyone, if you could prove this for porn, I maybe would agree in a porn-prohibition. (See also what I wrote about hellfire above.)


#93

Fact is murder rates increased, you can’t give me a single statistic showing it didn’t. I know you don’t have one, because the Government statistics of period, of which that chart is one, shows this occurring.

Further, while Beer drinking went down, hard liquor drinking went up, because it was easier to manufacture. It’s why America has a martini-drinking culture today.

Cause & effect.

There’s an easy way to tell that it wasn’t:

In the three months before the 18th Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30 prohibition agents were killed in service.

Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume of the bootleg trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970: 95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932

Increased officer deaths, increased offenders arrested… all of which decreased after prohibition ended.

That’s petty self-evident proof. Same to this:

Since the organization of the prohibition service to February 1, 1926, 875 persons have been separated from the Prohibition Unit mostly for official faithlessness or downright rascality. Nor does the total that I have given include delinquents not dismissed but only allowed to resign. Neither has the Coast Guard, that nursing mother of brave and devoted men, military as its discipline is, by any means escaped the contamination of prohibition. Since the duty was assigned to it of preventing the smuggling of liquor from the sea into the United States, 7 temporary warrant officers, 11 permanent enlisted men, and 25 temporary enlisted men have been convicted of yielding, in one form or another, to the seductions of money or liquor in connection with prohibition work. I am unable to say how many members of the force have been arrested but not convicted. On December 10, 1925, a United Press dispatch reported that the entire crews of two Coast Guard patrol boats which had been assigned to patrol duty off the coast of Florida had been court-martialed for conniving with bootleggers.

In view of what I have said, it is not surprising that Dr. Horace Taft, head master of the Taft School at Watertown and brother of Chief Justice Taft, should have said a few days ago at a law-enforcement meeting at Yale, “The United States is threatened with the rotting of her moral foundations and of her political and social structure as a direct result of prohibition.”

“Statement by Hon. William Cabell Bruce, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926”

Corruption advances. Again, self-evident proof; the number of officers who had to be dismissed dramatically increased.

Police Corruption, murder rates, organized crime, age of drinking.

You also forget, that while consumption may not have been illegal, the Gov’t made it dangerous by poisoning all legal forms of alcohol. The Government was literally paying to poison its own citizens


#94

AS, I thought about not responding to your last post here (and I’m not on the subject of porn itself or your rule of law points), because I couldn’t think of a nice way to say it. But nice or not, I decided (for better or worse, correctly or not) that it needed to be said.

I submit (and intend to prove) that you are guilty of hypocrisy.

The whole point of mentioning the issue about the range figures (about the F-15E (including vis-a-vis F-15C), F-16, and F-18) was to illustrate the untrustworthiness of your “facts” and cherry-picked sources.

In that debate, I was bringing up the ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE of the aircraft in question as a SIDE ISSUE to the debate that you keep trying to drag it back into. The ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE was NOT about Djibouti to Benghazi, or Walla Walla Washington to Timbuktu, or Tattooine to Alderaan, or anything else.

I made a strong case that the F-15E figure was low by contrasting it with MULTIPLE NAMED SOURCES (at least three, and I think four) with the range of the F-15C, and challenged you to explain what was so radically different about the F-15E from the C that would result in such a radically lower range; and you never gave a straight answer. You just reverted to “the F-15E isn’t the F-15C.”

I made a COMPELLING case that you low-balled the range figures for the F-16 and F-18, also backed up with MULTIPLE NAMED SOURCES. And not only did you not respond to the specifics I cited, you went on to insist that you hadn’t low-balled the figures, even though I demonstrated that the F-16 figure you provided was for the YF-16 PROTOTYPES instead of the production models.

I notice you getting irritated with another poster in another thread for ignoring what you posted about the Earth being round. Yet you yourself dodged all the DOCUMENTED evidence I posted. That is a double standard.

This, then, is why I brought all this up. I cited it in this thread as evidence of your cherry-picking of evidence and your generally less than forthright debating practices here, and I did so to cast doubt upon your argument (and I’m satisfied that it was legitimate to do so).

I think the real issue here (your argument to the contrary not withstanding) isn’t with who I think I am, but with who you think YOU are, and with who OTHERS think you are. You like to tweak people with an air of superiority in your arguments (I won’t say I haven’t been guilty of the same), but you lash out with vitriolic rants when someone steps on YOUR ego. I can’t say this as a definite thing, but I suspect that more than one or two other members notice it as well.

You are intellegent. But many of your arguments are not forthright. Don’t be surprised when you’re called on it.


#95

Phillip, I’ll get back to your posts (hopefully) tomorrow. I disagree with your debates, but I respect them.


#96

I submit (and intend to prove) that you are guilty of hypocrisy.

The whole point of mentioning the issue about the range figures (about the F-15E (including vis-a-vis F-15C), F-16, and F-18) was to illustrate the untrustworthiness of your “facts” and cherry-picked sources.

In that debate, I was bringing up the ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE[/quote]

BS, you changed the topic to that, because the actual reason reason it was brought up was if an F-15E could get from Dibjouti to Benghazi and back.

That is why we started discussing it, and it was the only reason I discussed it with you. I don’t give a damn about a technical argument. The only thing I ever cared about was you using this as a proxy to keep insisting that there was a conspiracy, WHEN THERE WAS NONE!

It’s all right ******* here:

This isn’t hypocrisy, you shifted the goal posts, because you found out, no matter what source you read from, it proved me correct.The F-15E does not have the range to do that mission, period.


#97

Yes . . .


#98

Bob? I’m calling foul. Context illuminates this issue.

qixlqatl and FC, and Dave, supported a conspiracy theory where the Air Force willfully stood down on Benghazi. They then accused me of being a sycophant of the Obama Administration for insisting they didn’t.

An accusation of someone else’s honor (with no proof), on top of ad hominem.

Meanwhile, I’m the son of someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11, and I’ve gone through 16 years of people telling me that my Mother is a traitor, who willfully sold out her country, because she noticed plane parts.

So let’s see: I have a longstanding vendetta against ***holes who accuse soldiers like my mother blindly, plus, I was being given poor arguments for why the Air Force/AFRICOM didn’t do its job for not stopping Benghazi, while also being accused myself of being a hack/ secret liberal for defending the Air Force.

I mean gee, let’s think on this for a second: why could I possibly feel, express, or hold resentment?

Did any of them ever walk back the accusation that I was defending Obama? Nope. Did they ever admit they were wrong, or that they at least had no evidence to support their suspicions about the Air Force? Nope.

Did FC himself even attempt to clear the air before “insisting” he was switching the topic, just to one of a technical debate about aircraft?

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

It kept being about Benghazi again, and again. Each time the range issue was brought up.

FC? I don’t know if you’re just forgetting that part or lying, but either way, you done goofed up, again.

Oh, and, I mentioned that I was wrong twice in that first thread, once to Patricia, once to you.

Here I’am, admiting that I was wrong three times, to you, about the F-16, where Benghazi wasn’t involved.

Amazing how that can happen. It’s almost like I’m an agreeable person when people don’t insult me or accuse the military of treason.

I’m not perfect, but “ego” isn’t my flaw. It’s being quick to anger with people who willfully push my buttons, whether they realize they’re pushing them or not.


#99

1 I honestly don’t know where that line should be drawn. I know that Satan uses homosexuality to try to drive a wedge between men and God, but I’m not as clear on it being man’s predation (I’m sure it is, but I don’t know where to look). Porn has a much more obvious and visible element of predation (which is one reason why I feel it’s a natural target for the law).

2 No, actually, I did take your position on this issue as libertarian.
3 On the whole, I agree that government should stay out of people’s lives. However, I do believe there’s a role for government to protect people from falling into nefarious traps. The porn industry is such.

4 I don’t see this as a conflict. I’m asserting a distinction between thought and what I firmly believe to be harmful action.
5 The Founding Fathers of this nation didn’t see a problem with it. Contrary to the lies of the left, this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values.
6 Nope. I’m speaking of things that preclude harmful action toward others; not harmful inactions. And saying you absolutely must attend church every week I think is dogma and legalism (against which Jesus spoke). There are good reasons to do so generally, but I defy anyone to make a case for missing a service (I miss most, because my health doesn’t let me travel to town that often) being an automatic damnation.

7 Which is why I would encourage you (and anyone else who reads this) to research it yourself. Don’t just settle for one source, and consider the sources that you do find. Again, I don’t recommend trusting leftist sources for anything sexual; as I see it, they’re on the side of debauchery.
8 Again, don’t trust just one source. Research, and not necessarily in one fell swoop. Keep building your knowledge over time. That’s my recommendation.
9 Like I said, I’ve read and heard these things on the radio from sources I trust. I can’t link you to a book or old radio programs (sometimes when they have something, I can link and have linked to it; especially Focus on the Family, because they offer the radio discussion in text, as well as providing associated links).
10 I’ve already made the basic case; I feel that our nature (as God made us) is such that we cannot help but be harmed by it whether we know it or not.


#100

…And Alaska Slim STILL hasn’t given a straight answer about his low-balling of the ranges of the F-15E, F-16, and F-18…

Not holding my breath…