RWDT XII - 12 Step program to get Right.

[Aellex]

That would be an accurate assessment if it matched what the argument has been; point was if the death penalty is too extreme a punishment for a crime, why have it at all?

No, it's a perfectly accurate assessment of what you said. I'm sure most people who support the death penalty don't want every shop-lifter to be executed in public place and yet, according to you, they can't support it without wanting that too.
Your argument that if you don't want death squad for adulterers then you don't want the death penalty is as stupid as the aforementioned death squads you want to create.

[Oil exporting People]

That would be an accurate assessment if it matched what the argument has been; point was if the death penalty is too extreme a punishment for a crime, why have it at all?

No, it's a perfectly accurate assessment of what you said. I'm sure most people who support the death penalty don't want every shop-lifter to be executed in public place and yet, according to you, they can't support it without wanting that too.
Your argument that if you don't want death squad for adulterers then you don't want the death penalty is as stupid as the aforementioned death squads you want to create.

....and I've already established that is not the case and showed how I said that in my post. You're welcome to continue making fallacies, but that doesn't make them anymore correct then when you made the first one.

[Reikoku]

No, it's a perfectly accurate assessment of what you said. I'm sure most people who support the death penalty don't want every shop-lifter to be executed in public place and yet, according to you, they can't support it without wanting that too.
Your argument that if you don't want death squad for adulterers then you don't want the death penalty is as stupid as the aforementioned death squads you want to create.

....and I've already established that is not the case and showed how I said that in my post. You're welcome to continue making fallacies, but that doesn't make them anymore correct then when you made the first one.

No, you didn't. You just made Aellex's case even stronger.

point was if the death penalty is too extreme a punishment for a crime, why have it at all?

[Aellex]

No, it's a perfectly accurate assessment of what you said. I'm sure most people who support the death penalty don't want every shop-lifter to be executed in public place and yet, according to you, they can't support it without wanting that too.
Your argument that if you don't want death squad for adulterers then you don't want the death penalty is as stupid as the aforementioned death squads you want to create.

....and I've already established that is not the case and showed how I said that in my post. You're welcome to continue making fallacies, but that doesn't make them anymore correct then when you made the first one.

Jesus Christ, mate. I understand how much you detest adultery, and trust me, I do too, but I think that’s a bit harsh.

By this logic, should we not have the Death Penalty at all?

"Death penalty is too harsh for adultery!"
"IF YOU DON4T WANT TO USE THE DEATH PENALTY WHY HAVE IT AT ALL!!11!!1!1?"

Oy mate, that's literally your own words.

[Oil exporting People]

"Death penalty is too harsh for adultery!"
"IF YOU DON4T WANT TO USE THE DEATH PENALTY WHY HAVE IT AT ALL!!11!!1!1?"

Oy mate, that's literally your own words.

You're welcome to point out where I claimed that wasn't my words. As for this particular point, once again, I already explained it. Your refusal to accept that is not my concern at this point.

[Questers]

I wonder how prevalent that sort of 'me first' attitude is in western society. It's been heavily encouraged by bullshit self-esteem and 'I'm special' programs in schools.

Hyper-individualist ideology makes people see the world like they're the protagonist of a book or film. Their character arc is "the point" of the story, the supporting cast is disposable, and other people and communities only matter inasmuch as performance of a few collective rituals and posting about it on social media declares something about the individual's "identity".

troofs

[Aellex]

"Death penalty is too harsh for adultery!"
"IF YOU DON4T WANT TO USE THE DEATH PENALTY WHY HAVE IT AT ALL!!11!!1!1?"

Oy mate, that's literally your own words.

You're welcome to point out where I claimed that wasn't my words. As for this particular point, once again, I already explained it. Your refusal to accept that is not my concern at this point.

If you acknowledge that those do were your words then you have to acknowledge you have explained nothing at all. There is nothing to accept given that nothing was presented.
Do try and give us an explanation, tho, I'm quite interested to see one.

[Reikoku]

I didn't even know socialist monarchy was a thing.

...kinda?

Kirill found his strongest support among a group of legitimists known as the Mladorossi, a Russian emigre monarchist organization that ultimately became heavily influenced by fascism – although it distanced itself from other fascist movements.[citation needed] The organization began to exhibit pro-Soviet sympathies, arguing that the monarchy and the Soviet Bolshevik system could peacefully coexist (their slogan being "Tsar and the Soviets", a socialist version of the traditional "Tsar and People" ). Kirill became more wary of the organization when he learned that its founder, Alexander Kazem-Bek, was spotted meeting with an OGPU agent. Kirill accepted Kazem-Bek's voluntary resignation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duk ... ife_abroad

The Action française leaned towards syndicalism and favored a decentralized state where private organizations would make their own laws. It would certainly have been interesting to see a Red monarchy happen.

[Luminesa]

I wonder how prevalent that sort of 'me first' attitude is in western society. It's been heavily encouraged by bullshit self-esteem and 'I'm special' programs in schools.

Hyper-individualist ideology makes people see the world like they're the protagonist of a book or film. Their character arc is "the point" of the story, the supporting cast is disposable, and other people and communities only matter inasmuch as performance of a few collective rituals and posting about it on social media declares something about the individual's "identity".

...This is surprisingly accurate.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I agree that the death penalty is too harsh to be used at all, but adultery should be a crime. Not only is it a crime against the spouse, it's a crime against society because it takes away trust between individuals and has the huge potential to harm any children in the mix.

[Reikoku]

Does anyone have any historical myths that are personal pet peeves? Mine is probably the Zen samurai myth.

I agree that the death penalty is too harsh to be used at all, but adultery should be a crime. Not only is it a crime against the spouse, it's a crime against society because it takes away trust between individuals and has the huge potential to harm any children in the mix.

So do a lot of other things, doesn't mean they should be illegal. That aside, historically speaking, women tended to be hit harder than men when it came to these laws being enforced. Just another reason not to be enthusiastic about imitating ISIS.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Does anyone have any historical myths that are personal pet peeves? Mine is probably the Zen samurai myth.

I agree that the death penalty is too harsh to be used at all, but adultery should be a crime. Not only is it a crime against the spouse, it's a crime against society because it takes away trust between individuals and has the huge potential to harm any children in the mix.

So do a lot of other things, doesn't mean they should be illegal. That aside, historically speaking, women tended to be hit harder than men when it came to these laws being enforced. Just another reason not to be enthusiastic about imitating ISIS.

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Does anyone have any historical myths that are personal pet peeves? Mine is probably the Zen samurai myth.

So do a lot of other things, doesn't mean they should be illegal. That aside, historically speaking, women tended to be hit harder than men when it came to these laws being enforced. Just another reason not to be enthusiastic about imitating ISIS.

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Nowadays, marriage is more of an emotional contract that a legal contract

[Thermodolia]

Does anyone have any historical myths that are personal pet peeves? Mine is probably the Zen samurai myth.

So do a lot of other things, doesn't mean they should be illegal. That aside, historically speaking, women tended to be hit harder than men when it came to these laws being enforced. Just another reason not to be enthusiastic about imitating ISIS.

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Divorce. That sounds like a penalty to me

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Divorce. That sounds like a penalty to me

It's not a penalty if you didn't value the contract in the first place.

We don't let people who violate other financial contracts just leave the contract without punishment as their penalty.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Nowadays, marriage is more of an emotional contract that a legal contract

Not at all, there are many legal benefits to getting married.

[Reikoku]

Does anyone have any historical myths that are personal pet peeves? Mine is probably the Zen samurai myth.

So do a lot of other things, doesn't mean they should be illegal. That aside, historically speaking, women tended to be hit harder than men when it came to these laws being enforced. Just another reason not to be enthusiastic about imitating ISIS.

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Your logic hinges on the erroneous assumption that all contracts are the same.

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Divorce. That sounds like a penalty to me

Especially since in cases where adultery is the reason for divorce the partner who's not at fault can receive more household property and alimony.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's the breach of a legal contract, there certainly must be penalties, or the contract is worthless.

Your logic hinges on the erroneous assumption that all contracts are the same.

Divorce. That sounds like a penalty to me

Especially since in cases where adultery is the reason for divorce the partner who's not at fault can receive more household property and alimony.

It's a financial contract, we do punish people for violating those all the time.

Distribution of property is entirely up to a judge, there's not much legal guidelines, so that is not a reliable system of punishment.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Nowadays, marriage is more of an emotional contract that a legal contract

Not at all, there are many legal benefits to getting married.

I'm talking about the social purpose of marriage

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not at all, there are many legal benefits to getting married.

I'm talking about the social purpose of marriage

Then the social purpose also provides good reason to punish people for adultery.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I'm talking about the social purpose of marriage

Then the social purpose also provides good reason to punish people for adultery.

Quite frankly, adultery does not physically harm anyone. The modern social purpose of marriage (I'm talking about marriage in 2018, not marriage as defined by the Bible) is a legally recognised union between two people who love each other. Note that marital relationships, like any relationships, can and do fail.

[Fahran]

Hyper-individualist ideology makes people see the world like they're the protagonist of a book or film. Their character arc is "the point" of the story, the supporting cast is disposable, and other people and communities only matter inasmuch as performance of a few collective rituals and posting about it on social media declares something about the individual's "identity".

...This is surprisingly accurate.

Sadly, yes. I'm tempted to elaborate on this point at length, but my heart is already trembling for some queer reason that I cannot diagnose. Our identities and our relationships have become, in blunt terms, shallow as we have fled from the realm of transcendence and contemplation to the realm of material appetites and constructed identity.

Quite frankly, adultery does not physically harm anyone. The modern social purpose of marriage (I'm talking about marriage in 2018, not marriage as defined by the Bible) is a legally recognised union between two people who love each other. Note that marital relationships, like any relationships, can and do fail.

The state should have no part in marriage unless marriage serves some greater role in public life. As I have stated previously, I do not believe that marriage and sex are merely procreative in their nature. Such a notion retains minimal scriptural support and is not conducive to the cultivation of virtue within the individual, within familial units, or across society. At the same time, we must be clear that marriage does serve more than just the two people who trade vows, though they may be the principal beneficiaries of such a contract. Marriage is also a service to G-d, to family, to society, and to higher virtues. To love even, but not in the way that has been commonly meant. Not to a mere feeling or whimsy. This provides the only justification for state recognition of what has become an increasingly watered-down institution in public discourse.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then the social purpose also provides good reason to punish people for adultery.

Quite frankly, adultery does not physically harm anyone. The modern social purpose of marriage (I'm talking about marriage in 2018, not marriage as defined by the Bible) is a legally recognised union between two people who love each other. Note that marital relationships, like any relationships, can and do fail.

Adultery does cause emotional harm to spouses and to children, and a divorce resulting from it can cause financial and emotional harm to the children as well.

So, yes, there is real harm done by adultery.

[Fahran]

So, yes, there is real harm done by adultery.

I'm not certain the death penalty is the most reasonable way of addressing the societal damage caused by adultery.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So, yes, there is real harm done by adultery.

I'm not certain the death penalty is the most reasonable way of addressing the societal damage caused by adultery.

I already denounced the death penalty.