Rand wouldn't punish feds who used Ashley Madison

[jllundqu]

Unless there is some evidence that North has inserted his controversial views into the curriculum, I don't really see the problem.

Outside of North's involvement, the curriculum was mediocre at best... But if it works for your kids, meh... I put together a nice compliment of subject-based studies for my kids that's fairly advanced (compared to public school) and meets all our needs. Wouldve been nice if RP Homeschool met our needs, but alas.

[idiom]

I'm not in line with this position, but it is interesting to point out that divorce rates have been skyrocketing in western libertine nations for the past century or so, while the small Middle East conclaves where adultery is still a capitol offense we see marriage rates staying steady, and also a lot less STDs.

And more pointless hyperbole via bad analogy. Anyone who equates divorce with being a day late with your water bill does well not to marry.

In places where adultery is still a capitol offence, being a single woman is also pretty much a capitol offence. If you make anything other than being married a crime, then surprise! People stay married. I don't think you really want to advocate that people should marry out of social and legal obligation though right?

If Adultery is merely a contract violation, which is all it can be in a libertarian society, then its the same as any other contract violation. Unless you are going to argue that a woman who submits to marriage becomes the property of her husband. In which case Adultery is a trespass. But I really really hope that is not your argument.

Biblically and in your middle east conclaves with which you are so enamored, women are indeed property.

[DisneyFan]

Outside of North's involvement, the curriculum was mediocre at best... But if it works for your kids, meh... I put together a nice compliment of subject-based studies for my kids that's fairly advanced (compared to public school) and meets all our needs. Wouldve been nice if RP Homeschool met our needs, but alas.

My partner and I haven't adopted kids, but if we did, we'd assemble our own texts and tools from different sources. We have both taught at some point in our lives (though much older students for the most part), so I think we could handle our own areas in terms of selecting appropriate materials and then just do a bit of searching for appropriate materials and texts in the areas we're weak in.

I looked at the RPC briefly just now and wasn't that impressed. I didn't see anything supporting theocracy there, so that's good, but the math and science courses aren't as challenging as I'd like. Example: Math 10, the highest math course listed, appears to be a basic Euclidean geometry course. Obviously a parent can supplement the RPC with additional materials, but overall it appears to be just a little too basic for good students, so why spend the money?

[hells_unicorn]

In places where adultery is still a capitol offence, being a single woman is also pretty much a capitol offence. If you make anything other than being married a crime, then surprise! People stay married. I don't think you really want to advocate that people should marry out of social and legal obligation though right?

Wasn't necessarily advocating it (I don't consider adultery post-NT to be a capitol offense), just pointing out that in a society that at least leans libertarian on social issues, divorce is the cool and fun thing to do, and it comes with a lot of down-sides that supporters of said eventuality choose to either gloss over or outright ignore.

If Adultery is merely a contract violation, which is all it can be in a libertarian society, then its the same as any other contract violation. Unless you are going to argue that a woman who submits to marriage becomes the property of her husband. In which case Adultery is a trespass. But I really really hope that is not your argument.

Marriage renders both the husband and wife each other's property, and both the property of God, see 1 Corinthians 7:4 on that one. It dovetails with Genesis 2:24 regarding becoming one flesh, and it is far more serious of a situation than a simple business contract, it's actually the basis of a functional society. And spare me that feminist, Wonder Woman canard about biblical marriage and patriarchy. Idiots confuse Islam with Christianity, and in this, idiots do protest much about things residing in their own imagination.

Biblically and in your middle east conclaves with which you are so enamored, women are indeed property.

While I do tend to prefer the concept of marriages being arranged according to the mutual consent of all parties (parents as well as each marrying party, there's less friction between parties that way), I'm not a fan of unilateral marriage arrangements according to Islamic standards, and neither is the bible for that matter. The subordination of women in the manner you are describing is not really on my radar, I simply accept the objective fact that anatomic functionality and body chemistry creates imperatives for society, and also gives rational people a rightful inclination towards finding things like women ruling over men as repulsive and unnatural, which is what western society has adopted, hence the decline of populations in American and Europe among groups adopting said libertine outlook.

[jllundqu]

My partner and I haven't adopted kids, but if we did, we'd assemble our own texts and tools from different sources. We have both taught at some point in our lives (though much older students for the most part), so I think we could handle our own areas in terms of selecting appropriate materials and then just do a bit of searching for appropriate materials and texts in the areas we're weak in.

I looked at the RPC briefly just now and wasn't that impressed. I didn't see anything supporting theocracy there, so that's good, but the math and science courses aren't as challenging as I'd like. Example: Math 10, the highest math course listed, appears to be a basic Euclidean geometry course. Obviously a parent can supplement the RPC with additional materials, but overall it appears to be just a little too basic for good students, so why spend the money?

Agreed. We really liked Sonlight/Bookshark, Timberdoodle, Math-U-See, and We Choose Virtue... We also have an etiquette course, and of course art and music. We really learned a ton at the Arizona Homeschool Convention... find the nearest one to you and attend... real eye opener.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul's homeschool curriculum was written partially by Gary North? That is very disappointing. I may have to rethink my participation as well.

Tom Woods was also heavily involved. I'm not intimately familiar with the curriculum, but I'm fairly certain Woods handled history and government.

[Christian Liberty]

In places where adultery is still a capitol offence, being a single woman is also pretty much a capitol offence. If you make anything other than being married a crime, then surprise! People stay married. I don't think you really want to advocate that people should marry out of social and legal obligation though right?

If Adultery is merely a contract violation, which is all it can be in a libertarian society, then its the same as any other contract violation. Unless you are going to argue that a woman who submits to marriage becomes the property of her husband. In which case Adultery is a trespass. But I really really hope that is not your argument.

Biblically and in your middle east conclaves with which you are so enamored, women are indeed property.

I feel comfortable speaking for HU as well as myself when we say we want to punish men who commit adultery too

[Christian Liberty]

Who said anything about forcing you into submission my self-conscious friend. I could be wrong, but I think CL shares my position that secession from pagan institutions like the U.S. Constitutional system is our preferred road of political dissent. If you don't want to live in a Christian society, don't visit us. But if you do, you will respect the boundaries of said system or else be subject to immediate expulsion.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm not against voting for political candidates in the current system provided they are decent (which is where I'd disagree with covenanters) but I'd honestly rather just secede.

This visual of us forcing conversion at gun point is hyperbolic nonsense, and more applicable to Marxist governments and past practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Thomas Paine was an idiot, and Thomas Jefferson wasn't far behind him, and proof of this is all over their rabid support for the French Revolution, which is where we had some actual mass executions for holding the wrong position on religion and politics within a context of Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment western civilization.

Indeed.

Would there be scrutiny to make sure they weren't faking their Christianity?

What happens to the Cultural Christians in a theonomic society? I'm speaking here of the typical person in a denomination like the Church of England where they only go to Church to be baptized, married, and buried.

Well... liberal denominations wouldn't count, but if someone professes Christianity and is baptized, and is willing to take the oath, there's not much else the government can do. Its not as if they can read hearts.

You really want to kill marriage off? Stone people for adultery.

Ain't no one going to get married.

Dafuq sort of forum am I on?

"Your water bill payment was a day late. That's a violation of your contract. That's a capital offence in this voluntary community sir!"

Seriously, why the stupid misinterpretations? We are NOT advocating this...

Christian Reconstructionism is ultra fundamentalism.

I'm proud to be an ultra fundamentalist. So how about that?

I baptize babies though, which wouldn't fly with most who are commonly thought of as fundamentalists

I feel comfortable speaking for HU as well as myself when we say we want to punish men who commit adultery too

[Carlybee]

Yeah, pretty much. I'm not against voting for political candidates in the current system provided they are decent (which is where I'd disagree with covenanters) but I'd honestly rather just secede.




Indeed.


Well... liberal denominations wouldn't count, but if someone professes Christianity and is baptized, and is willing to take the oath, there's not much else the government can do. Its not as if they can read hearts.



Seriously, why the stupid misinterpretations? We are NOT advocating this...


I'm proud to be an ultra fundamentalist. So how about that?

I baptize babies though, which wouldn't fly with most who are commonly thought of as fundamentalists

Nothing to be proud about in my opinion as ultra fundamentalism is basically religious totalitarianism.

[Christian Liberty]

Nothing to be proud about in my opinion as ultra fundamentalism is basically religious totalitarianism.

Meh. Refute it Biblically.

[hells_unicorn]

Nothing to be proud about in my opinion as ultra fundamentalism is basically religious totalitarianism.

I would tend to agree with you on this particular point, which is why I'm a confessional Christian, not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is an American creation, I'm following the tenants of the original Scottish Reformation, which predate fundamentalism by several centuries. Now, you probably won't like me much better in spite of this, not so much because you don't actually understand what fundamentalism actually is (and believe me, you absolutely don't), but more so because you've planted your flag on the notion that free love and hedonistic practices are, at the very least, permissible.

And kindly knock off this bull$#@! about totalitarianism, it's really boring. Adopting and insisting upon moral standards is not tyranny, it's orderly and good. Learn it and live it.

[Carlybee]

Meh. Refute it Biblically.

No. I don't have to prove anything. This isn't the Religion forum for one thing and for another thing I'm not about to engage in a biblical pissing match.

[Carlybee]

I would tend to agree with you on this particular point, which is why I'm a confessional Christian, not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is an American creation, I'm following the tenants of the original Scottish Reformation, which predate fundamentalism by several centuries. Now, you probably won't like me much better in spite of this, not so much because you don't actually understand what fundamentalism actually is (and believe me, you absolutely don't), but more so because you've planted your flag on the notion that free love and hedonistic practices are, at the very least, permissible.

And kindly knock off this bull$#@! about totalitarianism, it's really boring. Adopting and insisting upon moral standards is not tyranny, it's orderly and good. Learn it and live it.

My ancestors came here from Ulster and were Presbyterian ministers. I've studied a LOT of Scottish, Irish and English history with special attention to the time of the Ulster Plantation. I dont personally wish to embrace their beliefs or practices. As for the free love and hedonistic practices..you are a $#@!ing moron in that department and have no right to judge anyone...you who thinks "the intentional spilling of seed" is a sin. Oh..and I'll say whatever I damned well please about the parallels between ultra fundamentalism and religious totalitarianism. The fact that you just tried to shut me up speaks volumes. Personally I don't think you or Christian Liberty up there have a clue about much of anything without someone else telling you what and how to think. Man up and get a clue.

I'm sick of every topic turning into a religious forum. This thread doesn't even need to be in Rand's section.

Keep turning this place into a religious outlet for nut job punks and there won't be any libertarians left on here.

[hells_unicorn]

My ancestors came here from Ulster and were Presbyterian ministers. I've studied a LOT of Scottish, Irish and English history with special attention to the time of the Ulster Plantation. I dont personally wish to embrace their beliefs or practices. As for the free love and hedonistic practices..you are a $#@!ing moron in that department and have no right to judge anyone...you who thinks "the intentional spilling of seed" is a sin. Oh..and I'll say whatever I damned well please about the parallels between ultra fundamentalism and religious totalitarianism. The fact that you just tried to shut me up speaks volumes. Personally I don't think you or Christian Liberty up there have a clue about much of anything without someone else telling you what and how to think. Man up and get a clue.

How nice, mine were a mixture of those and Papists, suffice to say the former group won out. But regardless of lineage, you might also do well to understand that the Ulster Presbyterians basically provided the template for this country, though sadly with some poisonous additives from the Deists and their tyrant champion Abe Lincoln a spell later down the line. I doubt you've spent nearly as much time studying their doctrines as I have, bloodline or not, given the grotty filth that you've been spewing my way since the beginning of these interchanges.

And for the record, spilling of seed is a sin, argue that point with God if you have a problem with it, he instituted the means of procreation and set the boundaries for our continued existence and expansion. And for someone who whines about me being subject to some sort of mind control (I submit willingly to legitimate authority when it presents itself, as should any person who truly understands their place), you sure make a habit of regurgitating that same hollow nonsense I hear out of the vast majority of mindless, television addicted drones running around in this decaying nation.

Oh, and just to let you know, I'm adding you to my ignored list. I'll refer you to 1 Timothy 2:12, as I did with your Cajun buddy. That's right, per St. Paul's instruction, you've officially been shut up. The day a loose lipped, belligerent wannabe battle ax gets by suggesting that anyone "man up" is the day that Porky Pig sprouts wings and yells "That's All Folks" from the clouds.

[Carlybee]

How nice, mine were a mixture of those and Papists, suffice to say the former group won out. But regardless of lineage, you might also do well to understand that the Ulster Presbyterians basically provided the template for this country, though sadly with some poisonous additives from the Deists and their tyrant champion Abe Lincoln a spell later down the line. I doubt you've spent nearly as much time studying their doctrines as I have, bloodline or not, given the grotty filth that you've been spewing my way since the beginning of these interchanges.

And for the record, spilling of seed is a sin, argue that point with God if you have a problem with it, he instituted the means of procreation and set the boundaries for our continued existence and expansion. And for someone who whines about me being subject to some sort of mind control (I submit willingly to legitimate authority when it presents itself, as should any person who truly understands their place), you sure make a habit of regurgitating that same hollow nonsense I hear out of the vast majority of mindless, television addicted drones running around in this decaying nation.

Oh, and just to let you know, I'm adding you to my ignored list. I'll refer you to 1 Timothy 2:12, as I did with your Cajun buddy. That's right, per St. Paul's instruction, you've officially been shut up. The day a loose lipped, belligerent wannabe battle ax gets by suggesting that anyone "man up" is the day that Porky Pig sprouts wings and yells "That's All Folks" from the clouds.

Please do ignore me. I have no desire to read anymore of your idiotic drivel.

[Christian Liberty]

How nice, mine were a mixture of those and Papists, suffice to say the former group won out. But regardless of lineage, you might also do well to understand that the Ulster Presbyterians basically provided the template for this country, though sadly with some poisonous additives from the Deists and their tyrant champion Abe Lincoln a spell later down the line. I doubt you've spent nearly as much time studying their doctrines as I have, bloodline or not, given the grotty filth that you've been spewing my way since the beginning of these interchanges.

And for the record, spilling of seed is a sin, argue that point with God if you have a problem with it, he instituted the means of procreation and set the boundaries for our continued existence and expansion. And for someone who whines about me being subject to some sort of mind control (I submit willingly to legitimate authority when it presents itself, as should any person who truly understands their place), you sure make a habit of regurgitating that same hollow nonsense I hear out of the vast majority of mindless, television addicted drones running around in this decaying nation.

Oh, and just to let you know, I'm adding you to my ignored list. I'll refer you to 1 Timothy 2:12, as I did with your Cajun buddy. That's right, per St. Paul's instruction, you've officially been shut up. The day a loose lipped, belligerent wannabe battle ax gets by suggesting that anyone "man up" is the day that Porky Pig sprouts wings and yells "That's All Folks" from the clouds.

You've got guts dude

I don't generally mind libertarianism (it isn't 100% correct but it is a MUCH needed correcrive to modern statism, and indeed I would argue much closer to the Biblical model for government than statism) but I find it utterly laughable how little the libertarians here understand just how close theonomists (I know you aren't quite a theonomist but its a similar idea) are to libertarianism on so many issues of national policy. It doesn't matter that we want to throw out the Federal government outright, make everything extremely local, cut taxes at least like 90% from what they are, eliminate virtually all economic regualtions, end the empire, end the drug war... etc. All of that is outweighed by our support for local laws against sodomy, other sexual mores, blasphemy laws and laws protecting the true religion.

The fact that Cajun said Gary North is "more of a tyrant than Obama" is telling. Ron Paul doesn't believe anything close to that, and I'm willing to bet Rand Paul doesn't either.

As for "don't discuss religion" buzz off. Every ethical stance is religious.

[Carlybee]

You've got guts dude

I don't generally mind libertarianism (it isn't 100% correct but it is a MUCH needed correcrive to modern statism, and indeed I would argue much closer to the Biblical model for government than statism) but I find it utterly laughable how little the libertarians here understand just how close theonomists (I know you aren't quite a theonomist but its a similar idea) are to libertarianism on so many issues of national policy. It doesn't matter that we want to throw out the Federal government outright, make everything extremely local, cut taxes at least like 90% from what they are, eliminate virtually all economic regualtions, end the empire, end the drug war... etc. All of that is outweighed by our support for local laws against sodomy, other sexual mores, blasphemy laws and laws protecting the true religion.

The fact that Cajun said Gary North is "more of a tyrant than Obama" is telling. Ron Paul doesn't believe anything close to that, and I'm willing to bet Rand Paul doesn't either.

As for "don't discuss religion" buzz off. Every ethical stance is religious.

Like I'm going to pay attention to someone who said adultery and homosexuality should be punished by death.

[Christian Liberty]

Like I'm going to pay attention to someone who said adultery and homosexuality should be punished by death.

What if that person was Moses?

[Carlybee]

What if that person was Moses?

You aren't

[timosman]

What if that person was Moses?

Dude, you really need to get a grip. You still have not answered the question from post #91. All that trolling to avoid the answer ?

[Christian Liberty]

Dude, you really need to get a grip. You still have not answered the question from post #91. All that trolling to avoid the answer ?

That question wasn't addressed at me idiot

[Christian Liberty]

You aren't

So? I'm just repeating what he said. Not that you would have listened to him either.

[timosman]

That question wasn't addressed at me idiot

Feel free to respond. Your tag team partner did not want to come forward.

[nikcers]

What if that person was Moses?

What if most of the Women that were on Ashley Madison were employee accounts and some of them were even made by third parties falsifying information? Most of These people were so lonely that they would pay to talk to sock puppets, or they were people who had nothing to do with registering on the website. The real sin is paying to talk to sock puppets when we can talk to concern trolls on this website for free.

[timosman]

What if most of the Women that were on Ashley Madison were employee accounts and some of them were even made by third parties falsifying information? Most of These people were so lonely that they would pay to talk to sock puppets, or they were people who had nothing to do with registering on the website. The real sin is paying to talk to sock puppets when we can talk to concern trolls on this website for free.

New analysis shows over 99 percent of the women on Ashley Madison were fake
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/...ison-were-fake

[Carlybee]

So? I'm just repeating what he said. Not that you would have listened to him either.

You said that you would punish adultery by death penalty earlier so obviously you weren't just quoting Moses. I believe Moses also relayed "Thou shalt not kill". It's also very annoying that you assume everyone on this forum even goes by biblical law. Which is why you shouldn't go around trying to shove your religious beliefs down people's throats as if it is absolute. It's not absolute to everyone. I rarely discuss my religious beliefs nor do I feel the need to pepper every thought process with the rhetoric. You on the other hand bring it into every conversation.

[heavenlyboy34]

CL-do you agree that Jesus fulfilled OT Messianic prophesies? If so, why do you not care what He said to the men who wanted to stone the adultress? (Let those among you without sin cast the first stone) And what he said to the adultress? ("Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more".) Plz see John 8.

[hells_unicorn]

Feel free to respond. Your tag team partner did not want to come forward.

I don't volunteer personal information of that nature boy, I don't partake of the sodomite culture that rules contemporary America, nor do I indulge lecherous accusers who would qualify my liberty credentials by whether or not I'm playing the field like some self-indulgent libertine. If you have a problem with that, I've got a nice slot in my ignore list right next to Cajun just waiting for you.

[hells_unicorn]

You've got guts dude

I don't generally mind libertarianism (it isn't 100% correct but it is a MUCH needed correcrive to modern statism, and indeed I would argue much closer to the Biblical model for government than statism) but I find it utterly laughable how little the libertarians here understand just how close theonomists (I know you aren't quite a theonomist but its a similar idea) are to libertarianism on so many issues of national policy. It doesn't matter that we want to throw out the Federal government outright, make everything extremely local, cut taxes at least like 90% from what they are, eliminate virtually all economic regualtions, end the empire, end the drug war... etc. All of that is outweighed by our support for local laws against sodomy, other sexual mores, blasphemy laws and laws protecting the true religion.

The fact that Cajun said Gary North is "more of a tyrant than Obama" is telling. Ron Paul doesn't believe anything close to that, and I'm willing to bet Rand Paul doesn't either.

As for "don't discuss religion" buzz off. Every ethical stance is religious.

I wouldn't call it guts so much as just being sick of being pelted with nonsensical accusations and lascivious questions. I have a very strong anti-feminist streak to me from my experiences in college, and I usually don't show deference to people touting such positions. Up until about a year ago I would self-identify as holding a hybrid Libertarian/Paleo-Con view of politics, but lately I've had so many run-ins with socially progressive people in the libertarian movement (not just on this forum) that have started turning me off to libertarianism. Granted, covenant theology is antithetical to libertarianism in certain areas, but I've tended to prefer treating them as members of another nation whom I'd prefer to be at peace with rather than war, even though they usually don't reciprocate on that point and usually come at me looking for a fight.

I will probably get back to you on your questions regarding the adultery question and why I don't support capitol punishment for it at some point after this coming Lord's Day, once I've had a chance to pick my pastor's brain about the issue and give you something a little better than just a generalized argument regarding positive vs. natural law and how they apply to the OT judicial laws.

And yes, anyone referring to Gary North as a bigger tyrant than Obama bought themselves a one-way ticket to kook city. America, as a nation, is literally so hellbent on protecting their sacred right to fornicate that they'll sacrifice sanity in the area of economics and foreign policy in order to stave off any perceived threat to it. Or, more likely, they are just militant atheists looking to destroy religion, which means they may turn violent when they've accrued enough power.

[Carlybee]

Tom Woods was also heavily involved. I'm not intimately familiar with the curriculum, but I'm fairly certain Woods handled history and government.

I have no issue with Tom Woods, I'm a fan. I don't have a dog in this fight other than being frankly shocked at RP's and the Mises Institute's association with someone whose religious philosophy seems closer to the Taliban than to anything resembling liberty.