I believe in this to a point. But then there is the bad idea of having to take orders from a deaf, dumb illiterate jar head on the battlefield?
I think that in the time of the Constitution they didn't have such an inclusive or liberal meaning of what a man is.
I mean I don't have a liberal or all inclusive idea of what a man is.
And perhaps you might understand my point of view this way. You can't talk to a person for a few minutes and know whether they could be trusted as being a responsible adult?
Then you get to the idea, does this person behave or act like a man? Somehow those that want to believe in a strict sense of equality abandoned that notion; that a man should act like a man?
Does this person value life or money? In some sense if you value money over life there is an inference that you can't fairly compete and earn your money?
So you reach the age of 18 and you are a heterosexual male and you were able to listen and learn in school at the standard level. Most likely we would give you the benefit of the doubt.
And perhaps a good point in this is that if you don't believe in a standard of men then the country degrades to the point whereby you end up taking orders of a battlefield from a deaf, dumb illiterate jarhead in support of just that; a false idea you were sold. And something the Founding Fathers likely didn't believe in.
© 2024 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment