Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

a

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 12:17:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values
Obviously, he's talking about that good old fashioned viking law that requires the villiage elder have sex with a newly wed bride before her husband
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:23:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 12:17:40 AM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values
Obviously, he's talking about that good old fashioned viking law that requires the villiage elder have sex with a newly wed bride before her husband : :

Sounds like the old-fashioned Mormons.
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Worst title ever. It's like you had to first buy a vowel to create a title, but then you ran out of money.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 1:23:27 PM, Serato wrote:
Worst title ever. It's like you had to first buy a vowel to create a title, but then you ran out of money.

On his next spin he hit bankrupt.
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 5:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:51:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/7/2015 1:23:27 PM, Serato wrote:
Worst title ever. It's like you had to first buy a vowel to create a title, but then you ran out of money.

On his next spin he hit bankrupt.

Pat I'd like a chance to solve the phrase now if you don't mind - abstention of all things other than excessive use of the comma. Damn! I'm too good.
DutifulCynic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 5:24:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No in fact everyone I know would believe trying to defend your material possessions when you shouldn't would also be foolish.

This like everything has limitations.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 5:28:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 5:13:45 PM, Serato wrote:
At 7/7/2015 4:51:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/7/2015 1:23:27 PM, Serato wrote:
Worst title ever. It's like you had to first buy a vowel to create a title, but then you ran out of money.

On his next spin he hit bankrupt.

Pat I'd like a chance to solve the phrase now if you don't mind - abstention of all things other than excessive use of the comma. Damn! I'm too good.

lol
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:57:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 5:24:37 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
No in fact everyone I know would believe trying to defend your material possessions when you shouldn't would also be foolish.

This like everything has limitations.

Why shouldn't you defend your material possessions?
DutifulCynic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 12:28:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 11:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/7/2015 5:24:37 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
No in fact everyone I know would believe trying to defend your material possessions when you shouldn't would also be foolish.

This like everything has limitations.

Why shouldn't you defend your material possessions?

They aren't worth your life. If 20 armed thugs demand my wallet, I'm giving it to them.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 12:54:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 12:28:46 AM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/7/2015 5:24:37 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
No in fact everyone I know would believe trying to defend your material possessions when you shouldn't would also be foolish.

This like everything has limitations.

Why shouldn't you defend your material possessions?

They aren't worth your life. If 20 armed thugs demand my wallet, I'm giving it to them.

Who said anything about being worth your life? Just because something has value to you and is worth protecting doesn't necessarily mean it's worth your life.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:27:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

No-one you know maybe, but what limits do you put on protecting things which are of no lasting value?

No true Christian will ever harm another in the protection of mere property. Simple as.


However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

I, in common with all who truly are Christian, as opposed to simply calling themselves such, fight for Jehovah's moral values, the highest of all. However my fight is restricted to, and must be restricted to, the preaching I do on here. Anything beyond that must be left to jehovah to administer in his own time, if he sees fit.


Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born.

Yes wealth defines the individual, but it usually defines, In the eyes of Jehovah and Christ, their greed, insisting on having more than they need to sustain life. That is all a Christian is ordered to want. (Give us each day our daily bread, remember?)
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:02:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?

Presumably different depending on how far back you choose to look.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:07:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:02:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?

Presumably different depending on how far back you choose to look. : :

I understand you and that's why I asked the author of the thread what those "old-fashioned values" were. It appears he can't give me an answer.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 11:57:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/7/2015 5:24:37 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
No in fact everyone I know would believe trying to defend your material possessions when you shouldn't would also be foolish.

This like everything has limitations.

Why shouldn't you defend your material possessions?

Why should you value them?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:44:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:07:37 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:02:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?

Presumably different depending on how far back you choose to look. : :

I understand you and that's why I asked the author of the thread what those "old-fashioned values" were. It appears he can't give me an answer.

He would be hard put to since in fact there isn't one.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:44:13 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:07:37 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:02:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?

Presumably different depending on how far back you choose to look. : :

I understand you and that's why I asked the author of the thread what those "old-fashioned values" were. It appears he can't give me an answer.

He would be hard put to since in fact there isn't one. : :

There's an answer to everything but most people don't know it.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes?
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:45:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.

So, I'm confused. Do you believe these values have lost favor with society? If so, then, I guess it would be appropriate, for you, to call them old-fashioned.

Just because a value is old-fashioned doesn't make it bad or good; its "goodness" or "badness" is defined by the individual or collective in which it is held.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:48:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:48:32 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:44:13 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:07:37 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:02:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:49:16 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:53:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:53:56 PM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:00:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born. : :

What are "good old-fashioned values"?

Where did I say, "Good old-fashioned values"? : :

What are "old-fashioned values"?

Presumably different depending on how far back you choose to look. : :

I understand you and that's why I asked the author of the thread what those "old-fashioned values" were. It appears he can't give me an answer.

He would be hard put to since in fact there isn't one. : :

There's an answer to everything but most people don't know it.

Yeah, OK you got me, however the answer is dependent on data not supplied, i.e. from which period, lol. Until that data is supplied there is not accurate answer.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:52:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.

And Jesus commandment to to even think about doing it was spoken nearly 2,000 years ago.

Since Christ, God's law has depended on adherence to principle rather than a written code, which can be harder to do, but easier to forgive. (Jeremiah 31:33)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:55:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:45:42 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.

So, I'm confused. Do you believe these values have lost favor with society? If so, then, I guess it would be appropriate, for you, to call them old-fashioned.

Just because a value is old-fashioned doesn't make it bad or good; its "goodness" or "badness" is defined by the individual or collective in which it is held.

The rising divorce rate bears witness to the fact that "do not commit" adultery has well and truly fallen out of favour.

There was a time, in my wild youth, where I actually refused to go out with single women incase they wanted to marry me, or got pregnant.

I sometimes wonder how many men brought up children in the belief they were their own.

Of course now I have returned to the only true moral values, Jehovah's.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:00:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:45:42 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.

So, I'm confused. Do you believe these values have lost favor with society? If so, then, I guess it would be appropriate, for you, to call them old-fashioned.

Just because a value is old-fashioned doesn't make it bad or good; its "goodness" or "badness" is defined by the individual or collective in which it is held.

Yes, and frequently wrongly.

Then ojnyol true standard for morality is that it does not do, or threaten, harm, physical, mental, emotional, and most important of all, spiritually, to any other person anywhere on the planet.

That was, and remains, Jesus standard of morality, just as it was and still is, his father's.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:18:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:45:42 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:10:25 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:57:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:52:08 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:45:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What are "old-fashioned values"?

Values that are outdated or have fallen out of favor with popular opinion. ::

You mean like spitting on the sidewalk or staring at a woman with lust-filled eyes?

When did people stop spitting on the sidewalk or staring at women with lust-filled eyes? : :

They had laws in the past against spitting on the sidewalk https://malegislature.gov... and God's commandment to not commit adultery was spoken thousands of years ago.

So, I'm confused. Do you believe these values have lost favor with society? If so, then, I guess it would be appropriate, for you, to call them old-fashioned.

Just because a value is old-fashioned doesn't make it bad or good; its "goodness" or "badness" is defined by the individual or collective in which it is held. : :

You're the one who was talking about old-fashioned values. I just asked you what they were and gave you a couple of samples of what I think are old fashioned values.

What do you say are old fashioned values?