Step 9. The point in which the breakdown of morality is reached.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The breakdown in the morality of a society is reached when the price it has to pay to maintain its law and order supercedes the means which it can take in through its taxation of the people.

First off, we have the concept of "law and order" backwards. This is disillusionment brought about during the advent of the cognizant sciences. Civilization isn't created by first establishing law and then order but by first establishing order and then law. As the creation of every society first established order by force while it had little concern for fairness and equality, the implementation of fairness and equality came later as laws upon the foundation of order.

An example of what I speak once happened in the fruitful Valley region of Texas. A bandit once convinced many living there to revolt to live in an independent state outside the jurisdiction of either Mexico or Texas. Well, as one would expect, a few Texas Rangers rode down there to sort it all out but found it impossible to differentiate between the good and bad people because of local tolerance to lawlessness. So, the Rangers set about restoring order by just shooting people of every persuasion. Eventually everyone decided that it would be in their best interest to live in Texas. This is how it works.

Why do Hispanics tend to have so many gangs populating the fringes of their cultural events whether that be at parties or parks? It is because their culture tolerates such lawlessness.

Now, this reality might offend anyone who has been educated in the cognizant social or psychological sciences. These questionable sciences have set our society on a disillusioned course of establishing perfection through the establishment of law first.

Once again, a self-evident truth has no opposing theory to challenge it because it reduces down unalienably to be written on the conscience of every human soul. This is the formal order, culture if you will, that established the Civil-Purpose of the people. According to our founding-fathers, the power ushered from this formal-culture supercedes any preexisting legal-precedence established by the long history of traditions as well as any legal-precedence that might be established in the future.

[M House]

Morality is a total load of BS. It's just used by the ethically challenged. Simple if you find yourself doing anything to another person you feel wouldn't be fitting to have done to you...just think about the irony there. Is gayness immoral, beats me if they like it that way cool. Child molestation moral, would you have wanted to be molested as a child? Is porn intrinsically immoral not unless it's a sex slave posing most tend to be paid. However then comes the sociopaths and well you're not really gonna be reasoning morality with them. Afterall they don't seem to get the whole that's another person concept. But then you finally get to abortion and well thanks to stupidity that's complicated. I just take the glad that wasn't my mom concept and move on. Females feeling the need the need to kill their unborn doesn't seem like something worth a reasoning on.

[pacelli]

The only reason we should amend the constitution is to make every US citizen happier.

[heavenlyboy34]

The only reason we should amend the constitution is to make every US citizen happier.

I beg to differ. Making people "happy" is not a prerogative of the constitution.

For example, a permanent, all-encompassing welfare state might make everyone "happier" for a while, but eventually reality will change that (i.e. Social Security). I submit to you that amendments should only be used to add restrictions on gov'ment that hadn't been thought of before (because the gov'ment had'nt had such capacity for violating individual rights prior).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Morality is a total load of BS. It's just used by the ethically challenged. Simple if you find yourself doing anything to another person you feel wouldn't be fitting to have done to you...just think about the irony there. Is gayness immoral, beats me if they like it that way cool. Child molestation moral, would you have wanted to be molested as a child? Is porn intrinsically immoral not unless it's a sex slave posing most tend to be paid. However then comes the sociopaths and well you're not really gonna be reasoning morality with them. Afterall they don't seem to get the whole that's another person concept. But then you finally get to abortion and well thanks to stupidity that's complicated. I just take the glad that wasn't my mom concept and move on. Females feeling the need the need to kill their unborn doesn't seem like something worth a reasoning on.

Wow! You refute Frederick Nietzsche.
He who said God is dead! (Which meant morality during that time was dead!)
In regards to the dispensation of our contentment, we are blinded by looking at the morality of the created system rather than to the individual moralities of those who make up the system.
Oops.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I beg to differ. Making people "happy" is not a prerogative of the constitution.

For example, a permanent, all-encompassing welfare state might make everyone "happier" for a while, but eventually reality will change that (i.e. Social Security). I submit to you that amendments should only be used to add restrictions on gov'ment that hadn't been thought of before (because the gov'ment had'nt had such capacity for violating individual rights prior).

Um. Just what is self-evidently true and unalienable? You have confused yourself with European complexity.
If you are arguing that our formal divorce decree from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence, has no legal precedence, well, then it is that way by design. Our founding fathers did not create our nation as empowered government executives (lawyers) but as commoners representing the people.
So, we aren't ruled by legal-precedence but by Civil-Purpose.
Besides, legally speaking, our new marriage decree to a more perfect government, this being The U.S. Constitution, is invalid without it being juxtaposed, once again legally speaking, with our declared divorce decree from tyranny.

[M House]

Um I don't believe in God, I just believe in you and your actions. They kinda stand for themselves don't they?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The only reason we should amend the constitution is to make every US citizen happier.

That should be the first ammendment. Indeed, responsibility for the sake of responsibility is no better than no responsibility whatsoever. The idea is contentment with liberty being a necessary prerequisite of it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Um I don't believe in God, I just believe in you and your actions. They kinda stand for themselves don't they?

As much as you don't believe in God, you have to believe in the hell we are all about to suffer as a result of a lack of morality. If we aren't moral enough to operate our own economic engine, what right do we have to be a rich nation? You don't see anything wrong with how the present system cheats people who have to work at three jobs just to support themselves?

[heavenlyboy34]

Um. Just what is self-evidently true and unalienable? You have confused yourself with European complexity.
If you are arguing that our formal divorce decree from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence, has no legal precedence, well, then it is that way by design. Our founding fathers did not create our nation as empowered government executives (lawyers) but as commoners representing the people.
So, we aren't ruled by legal-precedence but by Civil-Purpose.
Besides, legally speaking, our new marriage decree to a more perfect government, this being The U.S. Constitution, is invalid without it being juxtaposed, once again legally speaking, with our declared divorce decree from tyranny.


I'll try to clarify. When you discussed the government "making people happier", I assumed that you are of the mind that government is a kindly, omnipotent, and benevolent entity. My point was that government is comprised of mortal men who are by nature incapable of divine understanding of the universe. Men have also historically tended toward corruption. This tendency, IMHO, must be reined in as much as possible before it begins to infringe on individuals' natural rights. Your points, in other words, seemed rather Hamiltonian in nature. Glad we can agree on some fundamentals here. :)

[Andrew-Austin]

Why do Hispanics tend to have so many gangs populating the fringes of their cultural events whether that be at parties or parks? It is because their culture tolerates such lawlessness.


I don't think it has anything to do with their "culture", but has everything to do with their impoverishment.

[M House]

As much as you don't believe in God, you have to believe in the hell we are all about to suffer as a result of a lack of morality. If we aren't moral enough to operate our own economic engine, what right do we have to be a rich nation? You don't see anything wrong with how the present system cheats people who have to work at three jobs just to support themselves?

Do you have to use the term we? I've only worked one minimum wage job as a dish boy. Otherwise I've pretty much volunteered my efforts to animals at the local Vet clinic and Wildlife center. Animals tend to actually respond gratefully to your efforts. I see little point in a family right now, it's hard to get a minimum wage job cuz you know what I have counts as limited job experience and that leaves me with just school. I have to learn some mostly simple shit people tell me to with a hoard of requirements. Most anything I need I can just look up on the internet in a couple seconds and well I have basic reading comp giving me access to technical journals and medical publications to pass the time.

So I like online console video games too nothing like actually getting to interact with people around the world who aren't boring. Ever talk to a nursing student goddamn it's like an generic NPC who says the same shit over and over. O O what's your major what are you taking what do plan to do with...then they walk away. People don't have interests anymore it seems kinda like my parents they've been "retiring" for a decade and have multiple homes etc. Other than having to remarry and figure out how to have a bit of family now outside of work it's um cool. People just need to realize you live, you die, does anyone care about what they do other than money? Family bleh all I see is a bunch of losers doing each-other for entertainment. If my parents got poor whoopie just back to dish boy to pay for school whatever losers. But yeah anyway morality...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't think it has anything to do with their "culture", but has everything to do with their impoverishment.

The cognizant sciences have led the minor cultures to rebel against civilization's long established social-contract. They have done so by perpetuating the false premise that such was derived out from European culture. But the pagan culture of Europe is itself just as minor a culture as any other primitive culture when compared to the formal-culture established by the founding fathers.

At the same time the pagan cultures of Europe were receiving civilized knowledge of Aristotle and most of Plato by way of the Muslims, a library in Timbuktu, Mali, Africa was receiving, at and around that time, the same knowledge from Alexandria -- as in Africa -- and other parts of the Muslim empire.

Our founding fathers used Plato's formal reasoning of "Best Principled Statements" (witness all the capitalizing of certain terms) in defining The Declaration of Independence while they concluded the formal document with Socratic like inductive reasoning (although only the inverted answers are given with the questions to them hidden). In other words, the formal conclusion is given first, the king is a tyrant, with the given induced answers following it. This same type of reasoning is witnessed in the formulation of The U.S. Constitution.
Aristotle's logic is absent as it had yet to be reestablished because of how the Vatican and the Church had persecuted Galileo priorly.
So, the reasoning in formulating our nation is not European at all but a gift given to us from a far, distant, and ancient Greek world. This world took up a total of three continents, not just Europe.

[freedom-maniac]

O Tempora! O Mores!

[freedom-maniac]

The only reason we should amend the constitution is to make every US citizen happier.

It is impossible to pass any amendment, law, etc. that would make every citizen happier. To suggest that it would be possible is horribly naive.

To suggest that it should be passed to make a large majority of the people happy is more reasonable, though it encounters another problem. Even if the large majority of people will be made happy by that amendment, there will still be an unhappy minority.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, the problem with democracy is that, "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

Then that begs the question of when we should amend the constitution. Regardless of majority interest, the Congressmen or state legislators voting on a proposed amendment should vote for an amendment only if they truely believe it is in the best interests of their country. As John F. Kennedy wrote in the epilogue of Profiles in Courage, "Each of us most stand up for what we believe in and be willing to take the consequences, if we want to make our country a better place to live."

[Theocrat]

The breakdown of morality comes from cultural/societal relativism, which basically says that every person has his or her own moral views and they are equally correct, depending on one's perspective. This has led to the degradation of Americans' moral knowledge and character, where we now tolerate the murder of unborn babies, public homosexual behavior, hatred towards any Biblical standard of moral laws, and a host of other atrocities.

When people remove God from the realm of moral law and judgment, then essentially anythng goes, depending on who's the strongest (whether in numbers, monetarily, etc.). Those who try to argue that they don't need God to be moral only subject themselves to logical incoherency because they only beg the question of what morality is and why it should be observed by anyone. For instance, many on these forums have said, "Murder is wrong, no matter who you are, because it hurts another person." However, this line of reasoning is just a circular argument which boils down to "Murder is wrong because murder is wrong." In this case, the proponents of this argumentation have not shown how murder is wrong (based on some objective standard), and they have not given any absolute reason why any person should live by such a moral standard. Thus, to some people, murder might be a good thing if it justifies a means of some kind (pragmatism), and who is another person to tell them they're wrong?

You see, all morals absent from a transcendent God only become relative judgments based on circular logic. One person can believe that eating humans is right because it is right for them to do, giving them pleasure. Another person can argue that stealing a wallet is wrong because it is wrong to take a person's belongings. Both of these moral judgments only beg the question of whether the judgment is indeed right or wrong to begin with. That is dilemma that supposed moralists are left with when they abandon God as the ultimate standard of good and evil, right and wrong.

Relativism is one of the most dangerous philosophies we must deal with in our American society (and really, globally). It is in our schools, our halls of justice, our chambers of lawmaking, our homes, and everywhere else. It is tearing down the foundations of moral truth and decent living which were hallmarks of our once civilized society. The breakdown of morality comes from man's attempts to be self-governed first by his Creator based on God's revelation. If this issue is not understood, then our country will continue to fall into misery and suffering on physical, social, emotional, financial, spiritual, and intellectual levels of epic proportions.

[freedom-maniac]

Excellent argument, Theocrat, but I disagree with the idea that murder is wrong only because God says it is. It is a fundamental, self-evident truth, that murder is wrong.

For example, it would be centuries after the days of Cain and Abel before God would command, "Thou shalt not kill", but it was still wrong for Cain to kill Abel.

[SeanEdwards]

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

[M House]

God didn't do shit, people harm people. And I question anyone who looks at morality as a remotely complex issue.

[Theocrat]

Excellent argument, Theocrat, but I disagree with the idea that murder is wrong only because God says it is. It is a fundamental, self-evident truth, that murder is wrong.

For example, it would be centuries after the days of Cain and Abel before God would command, "Thou shalt not kill", but it was still wrong for Cain to kill Abel.

I think you've not understood my argument, then. For all intents and purposes, who says that murder is fundamentally and axiomatically wrong, if there is no absolute moral Lawgiver to determine such a judgment? Is that your opinion? Is it based on your own understanding of what murder is inherently? From a pragmatic viewpoint, you're only making a hasty generalization based on your own views of the wrongness of taking another's life. Essentially, you're just begging the question, saying murder is wrong because it's known to be wrong. It's also evident from your view that you are slightly appealing to the masses (in a hasty generalized way) by stipulating the moral wrongness of murder.

Having said all that, I think I know where you're going. I agree with you that we all know that murder is wrong, but that's only because God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong. The problem comes when we try to live morally based on our own views of how morals should be carried out, and that's where the Scriptures come in and tell us that we cannot be morally right on our own (Romans 3). We need God's Spirit to regenerate us to live holy and morally in the way which pleases Him, and that is by faith (Galatians 3). That was basically the background of my last post, but I understand where you're coming from.

[M House]

Beats me but you make your making this weird. Killing people is pretty mean would you want someone to fucking kill you? How do you feel about someone stealing your shit, why would you do the same in return? So on and so on, it's really pretty hard to justify a "immoral" or whatever action unless your a sociopath or can find a way to creatively remove yourself from this loop to do something bad. Religion is actually an excellent tool to use to do this. If you believe your somehow above the person in a fundamental viewpoint they are pretty much damned.

[Theocrat]

Beats me but you make your making this weird. Killing people is pretty mean would you want someone to fucking kill you? How do you feel about someone stealing your shit, why would you do the same in return? So on and so on, it's really pretty hard to justify a "immoral" or whatever action unless your a sociopath or can find a way to creatively remove yourself from this loop to do something bad. Religion is actually an excellent tool to use to do this. If you believe your somehow above the person in a fundamental viewpoint they are pretty much damned.(Emphasis mine)

Why then shouldn't we all become sociopaths? Or nihilists, for that matter? Why should we adhere to your advice on what constitutes immorality, especially since you're postulating that an absolute moral Lawgiver (God) doesn't exist?

[youngbuck]

I think you've not understood my argument, then. For all intents and purposes, who says that murder is fundamentally and axiomatically wrong, if there is no absolute moral Lawgiver to determine such a judgment? Is that your opinion? Is it based on your own understanding of what murder is inherently? From a pragmatic viewpoint, you're only making a hasty generalization based on your own views of the wrongness of taking another's life. Essentially, you're just begging the question, saying murder is wrong because it's known to be wrong. It's also evident from your view that you are slightly appealing to the masses (in a hasty generalized way) by stipulating the moral wrongness of murder.

Having said all that, I think I know where you're going. I agree with you that we all know that murder is wrong, but that's only because God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong. The problem comes when we try to live morally based on our own views of how morals should be carried out, and that's where the Scriptures come in and tell us that we cannot be morally right on our own (Romans 3). We need God's Spirit to regenerate us to live holy and morally in the way which pleases Him, and that is by faith (Galatians 3). That was basically the background of my last post, but I understand where you're coming from.

QFT, nice post(s)!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The breakdown of morality comes from cultural/societal relativism, which basically says that every person has his or her own moral views and they are equally correct, depending on one's perspective. This has led to the degradation of Americans' moral knowledge and character, where we now tolerate the murder of unborn babies, public homosexual behavior, hatred towards any Biblical standard of moral laws, and a host of other atrocities.

When people remove God from the realm of moral law and judgment, then essentially anythng goes, depending on who's the strongest (whether in numbers, monetarily, etc.). Those who try to argue that they don't need God to be moral only subject themselves to logical incoherency because they only beg the question of what morality is and why it should be observed by anyone. For instance, many on these forums have said, "Murder is wrong, no matter who you are, because it hurts another person." However, this line of reasoning is just a circular argument which boils down to "Murder is wrong because murder is wrong." In this case, the proponents of this argumentation have not shown how murder is wrong (based on some objective standard), and they have not given any absolute reason why any person should live by such a moral standard. Thus, to some people, murder might be a good thing if it justifies a means of some kind (pragmatism), and who is another person to tell them they're wrong?

You see, all morals absent from a transcendent God only become relative judgments based on circular logic. One person can believe that eating humans is right because it is right for them to do, giving them pleasure. Another person can argue that stealing a wallet is wrong because it is wrong to take a person's belongings. Both of these moral judgments only beg the question of whether the judgment is indeed right or wrong to begin with. That is dilemma that supposed moralists are left with when they abandon God as the ultimate standard of good and evil, right and wrong.

Relativism is one of the most dangerous philosophies we must deal with in our American society (and really, globally). It is in our schools, our halls of justice, our chambers of lawmaking, our homes, and everywhere else. It is tearing down the foundations of moral truth and decent living which were hallmarks of our once civilized society. The breakdown of morality comes from man's attempts to be self-governed first by his Creator based on God's revelation. If this issue is not understood, then our country will continue to fall into misery and suffering on physical, social, emotional, financial, spiritual, and intellectual levels of epic proportions.

When we have to pay more police to police the police, morality becomes bankrupt. Instead of being free, a prerequisite for our contentment, we pay more in taxes to hire more police and judges, to appoint more lawyers, and to build more courtrooms and prisons.

As a Christian, my belief is that I will one day be judged. Certainly God at that time will not damn but bless me for my decision not to accept welfare, for His sake, that had been rightly granted to me by tyranny whether that be filing for food stamps, and / or accepting social security in my old age or a military commission granted to me as a member of our nation's military-aristocracy.

What moral reason would I have as an atheist to turn down such endless amounts of benefits offered to us by tyranny?

[M House]

Um cuz it sucks. I kinda think most people regardless of religion or belief turn down tyranny. There are a few that like it aka the sociopaths. But if you get off controlling and using people and stuff, that's more of a issue beyond religion.

[newyearsrevolution08]

As much as you don't believe in God, you have to believe in the hell we are all about to suffer as a result of a lack of morality. If we aren't moral enough to operate our own economic engine, what right do we have to be a rich nation? You don't see anything wrong with how the present system cheats people who have to work at three jobs just to support themselves?

Morality can't be forced on a nation. That is a person to person issue and I think the PEOPLE have become immoral just fine without needing to blame politicians and our government on it.

The people are the ones voting for this b.s.
The people are the ones so materialistic they stampede and kill people for CHEAP SHIT.

As far as the moral nation cannot be rich, that sounds like that is "trying" to tie biblical thoughts to current events or at least that is how I feel that "Thought" is being presented. I too agree that individual liberty comes with individual responsibility and as an immoral or moral nation that cannot judge us all.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Morality can't be forced on a nation. That is a person to person issue and I think the PEOPLE have become immoral just fine without needing to blame politicians and our government on it.

The people are the ones voting for this b.s.
The people are the ones so materialistic they stampede and kill people for CHEAP SHIT.

As far as the moral nation cannot be rich, that sounds like that is "trying" to tie biblical thoughts to current events or at least that is how I feel that "Thought" is being presented. I too agree that individual liberty comes with individual responsibility and as an immoral or moral nation that cannot judge us all.

If we are an immoral nation, then why should we expect to be rich?

[M House]

Some are plenty rich with the current system. In fact I really don't think we could make it much better for them.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Some are plenty rich with the current system. In fact I really don't think we could make it much better for them.

We really are naive in how we divide ourselves along partisan political lines. Most just draw a line between rich and poor. But only a few can hold power which also leaves most of the wealthy at the mercy of a few. This has been true time and again in this nation. It is almost like the wealthy in this nation get reaped like a crop by tyranny every 5 years or so. If one is already poor, then they have less distance to fall.
So, both the wealthy and the poor alike have a serious problem with tyranny.

[mediahasyou]

The only reason we should amend the constitution is to make every US citizen happier.

2/3 of congress is not equal to every us citizen.

Maybe we should amend that one. ;)

[freedom-maniac]

Having said all that, I think I know where you're going. I agree with you that we all know that murder is wrong, but that's only because God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong.

Or that could come as a development of higher thought, in a sense of mutual self-interest. It works like this: I would like to not be killed, and I'm sure you would too, so out of mutual self-interest, we agree not to kill each other.

I'm not saying I disagree with the idea that God made us concious of morality (because I do believe that), but there are many athiests who have also came to the sense that murder is wrong.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Or that could come as a development of higher thought, in a sense of mutual self-interest. It works like this: I would like to not be killed, and I'm sure you would too, so out of mutual self-interest, we agree not to kill each other.

I'm not saying I disagree with the idea that God made us concious of morality (because I do believe that), but there are many athiests who have also came to the sense that murder is wrong.

But Frederick Neitzches said that people suffer under a false morality. The deception comes about when people follow after a system of what looks like a caring government although the necessary functioning of its parts are operated by corrupt individuals.
An atheist isn't going to perform his or her duty with the idea that they will one day be judged in the afterlife. While a Christian might turn down the tyranny of welfare commissions for the sake of Christ and His posterity, an atheist would not share in this basic Christian belief.
I just can't see the reason or the wisdom in putting the operation of our nation's government into the hands of immoral, atheistic type people.
I will agree with you up to a point. As a Christian, I fear false Christians more than just true atheists and unbelievers.

[Truth Warrior]

"By their very nature, essence and design, the BARBARIC human institutions ( us vs. them [ church, state, etc.] ) tend to be and ARE collectivist, fear based, competitive and ANTI-individual.<IMHO>" -- TW

:D

[heavenlyboy34]

"by their very nature, essence and design, the barbaric human institutions ( us vs. Them [ church, state, etc.] ) tend to be and are collectivist, fear based, competitive and anti-individual.<imho>" -- tw

:d

qft (imho) :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"By their very nature, essence and design, the BARBARIC human institutions ( us vs. them [ church, state, etc.] ) tend to be and ARE collectivist, fear based, competitive and ANTI-individual.<IMHO>" -- TW

:D

The "barbaric" person of Obama though isn't so hairy, primitive or unintelligent. He is a barbarian in that he doesn't bring any useful substance with him to the national dinner table. Instead he brings a poison which he exhibits as irreverent eloquence. While our civilized founding-fathers were incredibly reverent towards the past and therefore quite substantial, Obama lavishes in the style of his own natural abilities.

Yes, President Obama is the culmination of a barbaric rebellion against "The Peoples" long suffering, hard fought social-contract. When speaking of our founding-fathers, he actually has the gall to question them. When doing so, he commits treachery against that which are the existential self-evident truths and unalienable natural rights of the people; because, like most government executives (lawyers), he has traded in his American soul and the Enlightenment of Civil-Purpose for the legal-precedence of tyranny. Because he ignores his own conscience in such a way, we should classified him as we did King George -- a tyrant barbarian.

I am certain that by the end of his tenure we will have done so.

[Truth Warrior]

The "barbaric" person of Obama though isn't hairy, primitive or unintelligent. He is a barbarian in that he doesn't bring any useful substance with him to the national dinner table. Instead he brings a poisonous venom which he exhibits as irreverent eloquence. While our civilized founding-fathers were incredibly reverent towards the past and therefore quite substantial, Obama lavishes in the eloquence of his own natural abilities.

Yes, President Obama is the culmination of a barbaric rebellion against "The Peoples" long suffering, hard fought social-contract. When speaking of our founding-fathers, he actually has the gall to question them. When doing so, he commits treachery against that which are existentially the self-evident truths and unalienable natural rights of the people; because, like most government executives (lawyers), he has traded in his American soul and the Enlightenment of Civil-Purpose for the legal-precedence of tyranny. Because he ignores his own conscience in such a way, we should classified him as we did King George -- a tyrant barbarian.

I am certain that by the end of his tenure we will have done so. How many of their slaves did the FF invite to their national dinner table party? :rolleyes: Or were they just the servers, bus boys and clean up crew?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

How many of their slaves did the FF invite to their national dinner table party? :rolleyes: Or were they just the servers, bus boys and clean up crew?

As the seeds for a positive-government-state were sowed in the world of Greece, the necessary prerequisite of liberty to achieve a more perfect model of that positive-government-state was later sowed by our Founding-Fathers in America.

While models for positive-government were laid down somewhat in prior times by both Moses and Confucius, the most brilliant model of it was expressed by Plato in his dialogue Meno. In Meno, Plato clearly depicts that a slave's mind can improve if a master teacher is willing to serve it. In this case, master Socrates served the slave's mind as a "mid-wife" philosopher. The truth engine or "dialectic" used by Socrates to do so was inductive reasoning or what has become known in modern times as "The Socratic Teaching Method."

Postive Government - The idea that every citizen can achieve some amount of contentment in their lives and not just the master or ruling class.

Thus, the birth of the concept of a nation of individuals as juxtaposed to a primitive caste system that had a few worthwhile master individuals ruling over worthless slave ones.

Our Founding-Fathers did no more or less than create a Formal-Culture. This Formal-Culture superceded all minor cultures whether such be pagan, african, hispanic, democratic, conservative, republican, or liberal. Our Founding-Fathers arrived at this Formal-Culture by narrowing down to it by using the metaphysical science of natural law. As I've pointed out until blue in the face, the scientific method of natural-law at that time was devoid of any knowledge of the questionable cognizant sciences. So, Locke's natural rights existed greater than even the individual civil rights because they existed self-evident and undeniable and because they reduced unalienably on the physical level, much like Dna, to be imprinted indelibly on the conscience of every human soul.

What the conscience of a peasant knows, the conscience of the king knows equally.

In other words, one can destroy America and the American dream, but one can't destroy that which is self-evident and unalienable. Our Founding-Fathers made this declaration while standing under God's judgement.

Therefore, in advancing the Social-Contract, the development of the nation-state and its concept of positive-government for all, the American Enlightenment far exceeded the French Revolution in Europe or any other on the face of the earth. If you don't believe so, please take your minor culture back from which it came.

[Truth Warrior]

As the seeds for a positive-government-state were sowed in the world of Greece, the necessary prerequisite of liberty to achieve a more perfect model of that positive-government-state were later sowed by our Founding-Fathers in America.

Well I certainly see the common denominator slave hold correlations. :p

While models for positive-government were laid down somewhat in prior times by both Moses and Confucius, the most brilliant model of it was expressed by Plato in his dialogue Meno. In Meno, Plato clearly depicts that a slave's mind can improve if a master teacher is willing to serve it. In this case, master Socrates served the slave's mind as a "mid-wife" philosopher. The truth engine or "dialectic" used by Socrates to do so was inductive reasoning or what has become known in modern times as "the Socratic Teaching Method."

So now your merely adding the Chinese and Sumerians to your previously strong European bias, eh? :p

Postive Government - The idea that every citizen can achieve some amount of contentment in their lives and not just the master or ruling class. Thus, the birth of the concept of a nation of individuals as juxtaposed to a primitive caste system that had a few worthwhile masters ruling over worthless slaves.

Taking a another shot at your bogus fabricated "Positive Government" BS again, eh? :p

Our founding fathers created a formal-culture. This formal-culture superceded all minor cultures whether such be Pagan, African, Hispanic, Democratic, Conservative, Republican, or Liberal. Our founding-fathers arrived at this formal-culture by narrowing down using the metaphysical science of natural law. As I've point out until blue in the face, the scientific method of natural-law at that time was devoid of any knowledge of the questionable cognizant sciences. So, Locke's natural rights existed greater than even the individual civil rights because they existed self-evident and undeniable while they reduced unalienably on the physical level, much like Dna, to be imprinted indelibly on the conscience of every human soul.

You might want to apply for a job at the DOE, I hear that they are always looking for more BS statist propaganda agents. :p

In other words, in advancing the Social-Contract, the development of the nation-state and its concept of positive-government for all, the American Enlightenment far exceeded the French Revolution in Europe. If you don't believe so, please take your minor pagan culture back to Europe.

Hey, barbarism is your schtick, not mine. BS and just made up crap from stem to stern. Truly sad and pathetic. :p



I'll just take that as a "NO, they weren't invited." Nor were the Native Americans, "We the People" and Mexicans. Got it. :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'll just take that as a "NO, they weren't invited." Nor were the Native Americans, "We the People" and Mexicans. Got it. :p

Your idea of barbarism is naive. Barbarians weren't savage as much as they were just natural. This didn't mean that they were hairy and unintelligent. It meant that they were against your national culture for the reason of rebellion while they themselves had nothing positive to add to the dinner.

Yet, creating the positive-government of a nation-state was an unnatural task as juxtaposed to the more natural primitive caste systems that existed prior to it.

Look, your complex European paganism is just as much a contemtible threat to the United States as are the minor African and Hispanic cultures which pollute it today.

American Transcendentalism -- Being an American narrows down even further than the level of the European degree of "gentlemanly" success and money to the level of happiness.

[Truth Warrior]

Your idea of barbarism is naive. Barbarians weren't savage as much as they were just natural. This didn't mean that they were hairy and unintelligent. It meant that they were against your national culture for the reason of rebellion while they themselves had nothing positive to add to the dinner.

Argue with Webster about that. :rolleyes: I'd say savages are natural. Barbarians often merely THINK that they are civilized.

Yet, creating the positive-government of a nation-state was an unnatural task as juxtaposed to the more natural primitive caste systems that existed prior to it.

( If ya can't dazzle em with brilliance, just baffle em with bullshit. :p )

Look, your complex European paganism is just as much a contemtible threat to the United States as are the minor African and Hispanic cultures which pollute it today.

Didn't some of your Greek "IDOLS" have slaves? :rolleyes:

American Transcendentalism -- Being an American narrows down even further than the level of the European degree of "gentlemanly" success and money to the level of happiness.

You and your frickin' never ending European "authorities" ( so called ). :rolleyes:


Hypocrisy becomes you nicely, BTW. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Hypocrisy becomes you nicely, BTW. :D

Truth Warrior FTW! lol :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Hypocrisy becomes you nicely, BTW. :D

Many among us today are having to go through the painful process of figuring out how to step down from their former high positions in society to work in lower paying ones instead. This was the whole point of American Transcendentalism.
It was actually the lowly and "savage" Native American who best lived the happy lifestyle that our Founding-Fathers intended for all Americans and not the "Gentlemanly" Europeans.

See? You are still a loyalist to your pagan European roots. While you seem educated, you still have yet to be diseducated from your paganism.

Try stepping down from whatever you do now to learn how to work at a McDonalds.

This humiliation would do wonders to your overall education.

[Truth Warrior]

Many among us today are having to go through the painful process of figuring out how to step down from their former high positions in society to work in lower paying ones instead. This was the whole point of American Transcendentalism.

I merely transcend your FAILED barbaric American Transcendentalism.

It was actually the lowly and "savage" Native American who best lived the happy lifestyle that our Founding-Fathers intended for all Americans and not the "Gentlemanly" Europeans.

Then the white men showed up, ripped them off, killed them and made them slaves of the state.

See? You are still a loyalist to your pagan European roots. While you seem educated, you still have yet to be diseducated from your paganism.

I glory in my paganism. Screw the BARBARIC human institutions WORLD WIDE. :p :rolleyes:

Try stepping down from whatever you do now to learn how to work at a McDonalds.

This humiliation would do wonders to your overall education.

Mickey-Ds would be a step up. :D



"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Voilà and TADA!, here we are. :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Voilà and TADA!, here we are. :p

Yes. The three forms that make up our government were acknowledged by our Founding-Fathers as necessary evils of tyranny. And, yes, we have indeed perverted away from their intended Civil-Purpose to move slowly towards a Hillary-like view of legal-precedence instead. As a consequence, our nation is continuing to transform itself from a state that was once empowered through the inventiveness of private officials, these being those individuals who run companies for profit, to Federal lobbying by public officials, these being those law making lawyers who run companies with Federal counterfeit.