Whatever, but you still have the morals of a majority coming to the fore (more often than not, through the language of identity and politics)prohibition = religious dictatorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
Whatever, but you still have the morals of a majority coming to the fore (more often than not, through the language of identity and politics)prohibition = religious dictatorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
Whatever, but you still have the morals of a majority coming to the fore (more often than not, through the language of identity and politics)
There are a stack of laws (and morals) governing the sale, consumption and production of alcohol that have no direct relationship with religion.i think the subject nature matters because the nature of personal relationships also matter.
the relationship between 2 minds
as opposed to a functional trade relationship between 2 entity's
Morality is not adverse to exceptions as long as they fit the moral code.
thus banning alcahol to prevent lawlesness of drunken behaviour to maintain a trade relationship between 2 entity's that have elective support by the individual minds.
those individual minds being allowed to drink and consequentlay have sex(consensual[must i need note it]) with whom ever they like.
your choice of prohibition may be intentional, Freudian or an error.
"prohibition " is exclusively a religious dictatorship.
IF you are sggesting that morality in a secular society is subject to religious dictatorship then i suggest you or the thread author may have used some incorrect words while thinking a completely different thing.
thus the correct thread header should read
"what is morality in a religious dictatorship when it comes to sexual promiscuity inside marriage?"
There are a stack of laws (and morals) governing the sale, consumption and production of alcohol that have no direct relationship with religion.
We understand you are on a "religion bashing" crusade and as such, you may feel inclined to trigger people just to provide opportunities to relieve yourself. However, it appears, as far as this thread is developing, you are a bit premature with your enthusiasm.
Perhaps the word "adultery" is just too religiously suggestive for you. You are expecting such a thread, up to its third page now, should be up to the task of providing you with a target rich environment.
All I can suggest at this point in time is that you be patient.
It's more that you are the only one in this thread talking about religion. If you repeatedly keep returning to it, it makes others wonder why.LoL
i am not anti-religious
i am anti cult
i am also anti slavery
i gues i must have pushed too many conservative religious buttons for you to follow my point.
Well, perhaps their inability to comprehend could be forgiven. As a sentence, that doesnt lend itself to a uniform conclusion.failing to accept that a large majority of society willingly operates in a secular framework of religous association is like failing to comprehend what the word means at-all.
Well let's hope there is enough oxygen to go around for everyone in the meantime.dont take it personally. i am passionate about human rights & the intellectual and social evolution of the species. the species will be extinct in another 100 years if im the only one bothering.
Who is doing this so far in this thread and where?as it seems to appear there is a pre-coded meaning to the word "adultery" that people are responding
(and consequently interlacing their religious dogma into it as a moral imperative, thats fine but they are in so doing making it a religous debate not a debate about personal relationships, MORE so when thier religion dictates their personal relationship of what they can and cant do in the privacy of thier own house between 2 consenting adults)
to and that is inside some type of (what seems to start to sound like)moralistic paradigm of religious piety based on being able to provide an excuse for betrayal in their most important personal relationship.
whine moan slam fist on counter bang bang... yes that is how people feel when thier morality is suddenly chalenged by their own hypocrisy.
not my fault.
denying that the usa was at the time a solid christian state government and political entity is just simple historic ignorance.
thats how it was.
all the other countrys that ban alcahol do so for religous reasons.
thus by simple deduction
prohabition is a religous law dictated to the majority by religious leadership.
thats not trolling. thats simply pointing out a fact.
one which im happy to discuss, do not confuse my eagerness of verse, to be personal slight toward you or your chosen path to the god of your choosing.
More than half, actually.By a most liberal assessment of the information you are providing, half a minority.
You end up with a two (or more) class society. Laws apply to the underclass. The laws are passed by the upper class - but are not binding on them. This encourages the upper class to pass more laws, since that provides better control of the underclass without being a burden on the upper class.And when the hypocrisy of a minority becomes a majority, what tends to happen next?
So you had 80% who who didn't drink and drive and 91% who didn't favour less stringent consequences. On the surface, I'm not sure how the respective 20% and 9% suddenly became, not a minority, but the "most strident defenders of virtue".
Given that the most strident defenders of a given moral virtue are often the most likely to violate it - probably not a good assumption. For example, 20% of people in a recent poll admitted to drinking and driving; only 9% favored less stringent drunk driving laws. (The rest wanted to keep the laws the same or make them stricter.)
Yes, I stand corrected .... a conservative estimate would have been half a minority. A liberal estimate would have been a mere minority.More than half, actually.
Have you got an example of this?You end up with a two (or more) class society. Laws apply to the underclass. The laws are passed by the upper class - but are not binding on them. This encourages the upper class to pass more laws, since that provides better control of the underclass without being a burden on the upper class.
Sure - speed limits. In a recent AAA poll, only 16% of polled drivers thought that "driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for skilled drivers." The rest thought the risk was moderate to high. But where I live, >90% drive over the speed limit. In fact, when I try to do the speed limit (trying to maximize range or something) I get honked at, flipped off etc. That's a case where people agree that driving too fast is dangerous, and to be avoided - but they do it anyway.Have you got an example of this?
Like an example where disregard for a law (both in mind and action) is found in 80 - 90 % of the population?
Agreed there.My take is that it tends to disempower the law (even catalyzing revolution if the issue is important enough), or that it introduces a dialectic to render it more benign.
Also agreed.It is my observation that in all such circumstances of majority disregard for law, any attempt by authority to shore up the disregard by introducing stiffer penalties or a platform for introducing a host of by-laws simply runs the very likely risk of rendering law impotent (that is, merely increases the number of laws that practically nobody cares to follow or enforce) or toppling the very authority orchestrating such laws. Either way, by introducing a more benign approach via rewriting a more practical interpretation of law or the more radical introduction of regime change, the laws come to reflect a more practical utility.
Upper and lower class divide would cover something like tax law, where the poor pay penalties (and sometimes spend time in jail) where the rich are able to insulate themselves from such penalties.Perhaps you have some other example in mind, but I am pretty sure that breaking things down into upper and lower classes is irrelevant.
What do you think the consequence would be if 90% of the said drivers started receiving speeding fines?Sure - speed limits. In a recent AAA poll, only 16% of polled drivers thought that "driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for skilled drivers." The rest thought the risk was moderate to high. But where I live, >90% drive over the speed limit. In fact, when I try to do the speed limit (trying to maximize range or something) I get honked at, flipped off etc. That's a case where people agree that driving too fast is dangerous, and to be avoided - but they do it anyway.
Upper and lower class divide would cover something like tax law, where the poor pay penalties (and sometimes spend time in jail) where the rich are able to insulate themselves from such penalties.
soo you want to have casual sex with someone even though you have already agreed to have no other sexual partners in your current sexual realtionship ?
you tell your current sexual partner that you want to and they say they dont want you to.
you then tell them your going to and you do...
is it wrong to then have sex with that person after you have already told them that you do not accept their "no" and that you will do it any way..
is it called cheating ?
should you both stop having sex together ?
if you current sexual artner is your best friend ... is it right that your best friend would deny you your hapiness by telling you that you cant have sex with someone else ?
are they really your best friend if they say you should not ?
is thier any adults involved ? could it be called adultery ?
what if its not even really kinky sex and you just kinda want to be close to them because your sexually attracted to them..
is it ok to hang out with at person knowing your best friend doesnt want you to ?
have i brought the thread back on topic sufficiently ?
Ah, okay. If you're defining adultery simply as sex with someone other than your legal spouse, then yes. I tend to see adultery more as the situation when it is not agreed between the married couple. So I take your point.Right. But if you talk about it beforehand and both parties (all three parties actually) agree to it, its not breaking any agreement.