It’s rather convenient that you happen to know these objective rules, but are unable to explain them (or explain how you know). It seems unlikely to me that you’re any different from thousands of others claiming to know some sort of objective knowledge about the nature of the universe without being able to explain what they are, or how they know for certain.
They usually give examples, though.
I mean, not being able to explain why X and Y and Z are ‘deviant’, that’s just a shame; but not being able to name X and Y and Z, that’s a bit different.
This discussion is making me uncomfortable.
In my pants.
You’ve got baloney in your slacks…
Perhaps more seriously, puritanism has the advantage of statism: it can be policed. Liberty is hard to enforce. The very phrase is self-contradictory.
Where in the world did you get this nonsense?
Neither Plato nor Aristotle were ever “punished” for their thoughts and the whole Socrates story is so misunderstood by people who have never studied it, (which would appear to include you), that your claim is baseless.
Beyond that your imaginary dichotomy between puritanism and libertinism has never occurred in the real world. There have certainly been cultures that leaned strongly toward puritanism–although no truly puritanical government has lasted more than one generation–but there has never been a truly libertine culture. (Occasional examples of libertine behavior within various cultures have never characteristic of entire societies or cultures.)
As with your error filled screeds on “germanics,” this discussion is so seriously flawed by a lack of facts and logic as to be useful only as an example of really bad polemics.
By the time of the “fall of the (Western) Roman Empire” the Empire had been thoroughly Christianized for at least a hundred years.