It's pretty clear that top-down rule is the answer to everything. The nation being 70 percent for abortion is irrelevant. We can get the Supreme Court to ban it and then they can't have abortions whether or not they agree with them. We can use the government to ban or restrict things we don't like. The majority is irrelevant because the majority doesn't know what is best for them.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>We can use the government to ban or restrict things we don't like.
Awww, you're starting to take after your father religion so well!
Banning things or restricting them to make society better is a good thing, not a bad thing.
How is banning things from the top down a bad thing instead of a good thing? The majority are in clown world right now so they need someone to tell them now like the petulant children they are.
FPBP
So those who know, have knowledge "deserve" to have top-down power. The only question about your post is that you believe in "just deserts", that you are a moral realist. You believe in "just deserts" and "justice", i.e. natural law theory. That is you demand power while you still adhere to slave morality i.e. Christianity, as if it must necessary come into your hands.
> Desert claims may be generally expressed as: Thing X deserves Y in virtue of Z.
The only difference here is that you believe "in virtue of Z" can be accounted in slave morality, as if "meekness", "humility", "the poor", "righteousness". But "X deserves Y in virtue of Z" is Rawlsian nonsense that clouds and complicates causality as if the just-world hypothesis were the case.
But might makes right, which goes to the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. The ones in power can have media shape culture, the arts, the sciences, politics and religion and effectively change the apparent definition of right. Machiavellian virtu instead of slave virtue seizes X and skips Y entirely. Much more simpler.
"Top-down rule" is absolutely the answer. Joseph Stalin was the greatest top-down ruler of all time. Personally, it would be a very pretty sight if the family, marriage, religion, tradition, liberalism were abolished top-down. The "imago dei" should also be abolished as well. The State should clone new humans for reproduction instead of the traditional family and genetic engineering should be used for a new population of new humans without disease, infirmity, religiosity or feeling. All copies of the Bible should be seized and burned. Copeland and Hovind need to physically stop existing.
We completely agree with OP, merely as authleft instead as authright.
Top-down rule isn't incompatible with Catholicism though. It's baked into Catholic theology that the theological class on top is the one who makes the ecumenical decisions. Catholicism has never functioned as a democracy.
We don't read the Bible the same way Protestants or unbelievers do. We take the Bible as a whole and use our own theology to unite all 73 books. X deserves Y is a valid argument as well. What someone deserves or does not deserve is extremely relevant to the world itself. It's not so much might makes right. It's more that we are right and if God gives us the power to enforce it then this is good. Being in control does not make our way right. Being right is what gives us the right to control.
>Being right is what gives us the right to control.
Demonstrate (univocally) this "morality causality".
You need another panel with libertarian right asking where's the child he paid for.
>Personally, it would be a very pretty sight if the family, marriage, religion, tradition, liberalism were abolished top-down. The "imago dei" should also be abolished as well. The State should clone new humans for reproduction instead of the traditional family and genetic engineering should be used for a new population of new humans without disease, infirmity, religiosity or feeling
The amount of moronic pseudo-intellectualism in this post makes me cringe.
>democracy voted to free Barabbas
based. what's the problem?
If you're a Christian that means humanity was redeemed, so it really was the best decision in the long run.
>rule a religious autocracy completely disregarding most of the population and suppressing dissent with force
damn such a good idea, i wonder why no one tried that before, right?
>we can use the government to ban or restrict things we don't like
well to bad for you said governments policies are influences by the majority so unless whatever meme tier policy somehow gets massive support, you probably won't get what you want in the long run (especially since the recent roe v wade ruling isn't banning it but leaving it up to the states, at least until congress makes an official law)
We can though because there's such a thing as mandates and such a thing as the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade rolled back is just the beginning. The Supreme Court has the ball in its court and is in there for life so they don't have to worry about other people voting them out.
Society is extremely unstable as is. Just leaving things will result in the same thing you're saying.
>they are there for life
problem for you is that when they do die they can be replaced by canidates that don't support you position since they came from a congress and president that disagrees with the ruling, also you are foolish to think the Court doesn't feel outside pressure because it certainly does, hell why else do you think they are still dragging their feet with the ruling despite it being leaked a while ago
They can die but what's the point of getting into the Supreme Court if you can't go all the way? If they ban abortion for example, the kids growing up with banned abortions will see it as normal and will be far more against abortion than if they grew up with it as legal. So even then it can change the future generations and what the future wants.
>the kids growing up with banned abortions will see it as normal and will be far more against abortion than if they grew up with it as legal
Romania tried just that and it had the complete opposite effect. Turns out dumping all those unwanted pregnancies into orphanages just resulted in a lot of fricked up kids angry at the state that forced them to suffer from birth.
>if they ban abortion kids will see it as normal
considering how things that were considered "normal" like segregation ended up being removed I really doubt your theory holds up, especially since when the reason for you wanting it gones is at best contested moralism
>goys banning things works! xDxDxD
Wow I wonder why we haven't tried that before: imagine if we could just ban alcohol or marijuana or fricking pinball (real thing in New York and California from 1940 to the 70s.)
Without a ban on theft and looting, cities would be looted far more often. It's the ban that keeps people acting good.
Anon property crime has ALWAYS been higher in urban areas regardless of legality.
>cities would be looted far more often
You outright admit bans don't work. The actions haven't stopped, its only made the behavior that more risky to begin with; did you ever learn about what happened under Prohibition? People didn't stop drinking booze because the moralgays got uppity in Congress.
Look at what happened in Minneapolis. When the police withdrew, the city got set on fire and it was chaos everywhere. Also, I'm not saying I'm pro prohibition but it did reduce the drinking rate.
Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption — although that was less than the initial effect, as people figured some ways around the law.
There would at least be some reduction in behavior from bans. Thus, bans can be considered effective.
>are you drinking during prohibition?
>n-no
>oh okay we'll mark you down as a good goy
I wonder why people would under-report illegal activity to authority; you'd think they'd be more honest considering its illegal to do crimes.
>Thus, bans can be considered effective.
That's some pretty big fed cope, did you forget what happened to the 18th Amendment?
Cirrhosis cases also went down during prohibition.
For drugs, it depends on how you ban it and how you get it out of circulation. Abortion mostly being surgical can be stopped a lot of the time. It's a lot harder to access this than say alcohol.
>how you get it out of circulation
"How" always depends on the context, one thing is trying to seize drugs inside a suburban area which is different from urban area with a lot of hiding spots. Different planning = different costs.
> Abortion mostly being surgical can be stopped a lot of the time
Yes, as a dangerous and complicated practice people have more incentives to not frick or use protections in case of ban.
>alcohol
It was impossible at least in america, they're also going to make more profits because it's an illegal activity only few businesses are willling to do, while you keep throwing taxpayers money to the police just to be sure nobody is making vodka.
Some stuff is just too impractical to ban and you have better stuff to think about as a state.
I'm not for banning alcohol but am for banning abortion so you're right. Abortion is a complicated practice so it's far easier to ban anyways.
>Without a ban on theft and looting, cities would be looted far more often
Without a ban on theft and looting, no sane businessman would move there.
It's why shit is more expensive in extremely poor areas.
I know. This is my point. Bans work. People say "banning things never works" but I can tell you that the murder rate would be much higher if murder wasn't illegal.
I agree, BUT you must be able to enforce that ban, and it's not cost effective.
Banning drugs doesn't mean drugs stop circulating, and imposing regulation on something doesn't refrain people from, for example, create a gray market to affort that thing easily.
Why am I allowed to drink and go shopping on sundays if bans work?
God never blessed the first day of the week and the modern talmudic/secular world disregards the Word of God
That doesn't answer my question.
Why don't bans work? Working on sunday used to be a blanket offense for western populations yet people still did/do it. Wouldn't the bans magically prevent them?
Top down rule is so good that the soviets won the cold war with their supreme authority in the state and planned economies
Wasn’t barabbas a rebel who started riots against roman authority?
>It's pretty clear that top-down rule is the answer to everything.
>We can use the government to ban or restrict things we don't like.
homie, what makes you think that YOU are going to be part of whatever the top authority is going to be?
>homie, what makes you think that YOU are going to be part of whatever the top authority is going to be?
His belief in the just-world hypothesis.
Google "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns".
You're welcome.
>unwanted moron children are good actually
People will be more careful with sex and value marriage more if they know kids are consequences. The kids are wanted by someone. If you think you can just throw children away you have no values.
Unironically yes.
>the majority doesn't know what is best for them
>People will be more careful with sex and value marriage more
repeating other peoples comments isn't an argument anon.... you'd get laughed at irl for trying this.
Normies don't see the consequences of their abortions on the innocent but care about the consequences all of a sudden when someone when someone has no option but to bear the baby.
> babies
> innocent
Relatively innocent. Fetuses have original sin. We know this.
Babies must be saved
The issue of abortion was fundamentally never about the intrinsic value of life nor was it about women's autonomy. It resolves to the question "should we or should we not abolish the family"?
>All that abolishes the family achieves our politics.
>Abortion abolishes the family.
>Abortion achieves our politics.
How does abortion abolish family?
Unwanted down syndrome Black person children is what really brings families together
Well if that is the case your land and property belong to me for something morally uncloth you’ve done in your past, and if you haven’t done it, I just need to convince a few people that you did.
>look let’s just live in a theocracy ruled by religious fervor with a moral police to enforce the rules
Keep abortion, but put women into chastity belts.
I have a question for pro choice normies. People say abortion is normal and abortion is okay but when pro lifers bring out pictures of abortions the normies are horrified and talk about the blood and gore. If it's horrifying for you to see then why do you support it? Instead you blame the messengers with abortion pics
tbhq a lot of people are okay with eating meat but don't want to look at an animal being slaughtered
Many normies go hunting although these normies tend to be anti-abortion and not pro abortion.
>not realizing abortion is just natural selection in practice
Every good hunter realizes the necessity of being a steward of the land: you don't let deer breed out of control or else it fricks up the whole ecosystem, likewise you don't let criminals spawn out of control or else your country becomes a den of doped-up, unwanted, system-raised, abusive criminals.
Margaret Sanger was right, its a filter for those unfit to have children.