Legislating morality

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Agreed.
But there is no equal opportunity.

And I do not believe in a wilfully poor.

"But there is no equal opportunity."

Under the USA Constitutional Principles there is; it's neutralized in practice
whenever power mongering federal governments assume the role of God.

Originally posted by JS357
"Equality, all with a vigorous work ethic have the opportunity to succeed; if not, to slack off and fail."

So do you believe that only those who slack off, fail?

Virtually all who do slack off will eventually fail and/or turn to a life of crime.
Of course there are many examples of impossible situations; however,
even then, some rise above to succeed while others will depend on welfare.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"But there is no equal opportunity."

Under the USA Constitutional Principles there is; it's neutralized in practice
whenever power mongering federal governments assume the role of God.

You honestly believe that at birth in the US all have the same opportunity?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You honestly believe that at birth in the US all have the same opportunity?

In principle, of course. Bad decisions on the part of a child's parents (note plural) and even grandparents may have caused adversity and poverty and insecurity and genetic or medical liabilities or the household presence of a criminal element which serve to redefine the child's chances of a successful transition to an arena in which these opportunities may be realized.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
In principle, of course. Bad decisions on the part of a child's parents (note plural) and even grandparents may have caused adversity and poverty and insecurity and genetic or medical liabilities or the household presence of a criminal element which serve to redefine the child's chances of a successful transition to an arena in which these opportunities may be realized.

that's a "no" then.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Virtually all who do slack off will eventually fail and/or turn to a life of crime.
Of course there are many examples of impossible situations; however,
even then, some rise above to succeed while others will depend on welfare.

So should I take that as a yes to this question: "So do you believe that only those who slack off, fail?"? It seems like you really want to say yes.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
that's a "no" then.

Two-Valued Thinking at times (not always but at times) causes Semantic Fog that human beings find refuge in when they are unable to confront the stern realities of sunlight, suspend their judgment until an issue becomes clear. An apt metaphor might be a kind of closet intellectual masturbation which seeks premature gratification. There's a line in one of Robert Frost's poems that I just borrowed from without realizing it at the time: "The strong are saying nothing until they know".

Originally posted by JS357
So should I take that as a yes to this question: "So do you believe that only those who slack off, fail?"? It seems like you really want to say yes.

1:00 AM here. I'm exhausted. See you tomorrow and thanks for today.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
1:00 AM here. I'm exhausted. See you tomorrow and thanks for today.

Sleep well. I often benefit from it.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Two-Valued Thinking at times (not always but at times) causes Semantic Fog that human beings find refuge in when they are unable to confront the stern realities of sunlight, suspend their judgment until an issue becomes clear. An apt metaphor might be a kind of closet intellectual masturbation which seeks premature gratification. There\'s a line in one o ...[text shortened]... borrowed from without realizing it at the time: \"The strong are saying nothing until they know\".

Never in the field of human debate has so little been said with so many words.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Never in the field of human debate has so little been said with so many words.

Thanks for registering your public disapproval. I'll give it some thought.

Originally posted by JS357

So should I take that as a yes to this question: "So do you believe that only those who slack off, fail?"? It seems like you really want to say yes.

"Virtually all who do slack off will eventually fail and/or turn to a life of crime.
Of course there are many examples of impossible situations; however,
even then, some rise above to succeed while others will depend on welfare."

"So should I take that as a yes to this question: "So do you believe that only those who slack off, fail?"? It seems like you really want to say yes." JS325

"In principle, of course. Bad decisions on the part of a child's parents (note plural) and even grandparents may have caused adversity and poverty and insecurity and genetic or medical liabilities or the household presence of a criminal element which serve to redefine the child's chances of a successful transition to an arena in which these opportunities may be realized."

Sorry for the delay. Direct answer to your probing question is simply, yes except in the context of the negative home environments described above. Some family contexts minimize opportunities for success from being realized.

Everyone can agree that giving to the poor is good, but is everyone who gives to the poor good?

No. As I have shown, men like Al Capone did so, but only for their own benefit.

The US government gives money to every man, woman, and child on the planet, but is it because they care about them? No, it is because they want influence in their lives.

Should we not then take pause that we are perhaps being bought off? Is it worth the price? Unfortunately, most people are petty and short sided. As a result, the progressive formula works. All that is needed to legitimize a centralized pot of money to conduct war around the world is to use some of those funds to "help people" around the world. In fact, it is almost necessary to justify such power.

Originally posted by whodey
Everyone can agree that giving to the poor is good, but is everyone who gives to the poor good?

No. As I have shown, men like Al Capone did so, but only for their own benefit.

The US government gives money to every man, woman, and child on the planet, but is it because they care about them? No, it is because they want influence in their lives.

Sh ...[text shortened]... funds to "help people" around the world. In fact, it is almost necessary to justify such power.

Christian Giving as well as all other community giving and charitable good works count for less than nothing if and whenever the motive is self serving (self aggrandizement, approbation, competitive Upsmanship, gaining atta boys and atta girls from God, etc.). Remember the husband and wife who falsely reported their real estate transaction proceeds giving in the Book of Acts and what happened to them and how quickly? Nobody messes with God for long and gets away unscathed. Nobody.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, put another way, all laws are passed for what is considered "good" for society.

How that is not based upon morality I have no idea.

There is a very big difference between 'based upon morality' and 'legislating morality'. The former suggests you all agree on what is moral and use morality as a foundation for your legislation. The latter suggests you are deciding what is moral using legislation. You clearly intended the latter meaning but don't want to admit it hence your attempts at switching to the former meaning.

I also note that neither you, nor any other poster, has yet justified the claim that more laws result in fewer freedoms despite several posters making that claim, and your OP hinting at it.
Have you considered the possibility that some of the laws in question were in fact deregulation of morality? eg a law decriminalizing possession of drugs might be viewed that way.