I'm not dissing all classics

Post #63,337 by wharris2 11/16/02 10:06:12 PM Reply	I'm not dissing all classics Those that tell what happened (however weighed on one side or the other) are useful. Philisophical classics? Hell, nobody today can agree or argue civily on philosophy. You can know about theorums and postulates without knowing about what Pythagorus said, though it may be funny to high school students to know an old guy in Greece said thus-and-so. :-)
Post #63,340 by boxley 11/16/02 10:13:26 PM Reply	re: nobody today can agree or argue civily on philosophy because we dont teach the classics which layout how to discuss these things civilly. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,354 by Ashton 11/17/02 12:26:23 AM Reply	Yeah sure.. and you can drive a car without knowing anything about hydrocarbons (or 'Carbon'), valence or F=MA. Umm hey - just like today! (There's always AAA.. unless of course, the 'repairman': got the same edjaKayshun too!) Gotta love the idea of utility. It's stark simplicity. Why one could create a 20 Volume set describing in detail: all that the idea lacks. Pointless though - with no readers about. All watchin Tee Vee animations. All that writing time saved! (it's all adding up!) (Guess if I dubbed you a wannabe-Brobdignagian, it wouldn't take - Swift is unnecessary to basic skateboarding 101 too! Oh well.) So let's go for it! Ee-fish-uncy in edjaKayshun [improved EZ-spelling for the reading impaired]: Issue a calculator, blank CC-application and draft card # (no need to know anything potentially useful >age 19. It may well be a moot issue. Clothes and barracks will be provided.) We can save Trillion$! in wasted teechur salaries - in a generation or so. (The teechurs can read folks their comic books, for spare change and a flop for the night.) And fergit them dead I-talians n stuff too - who cares what some DuVinki guy had to say - hell, he didn't even have transistors! ..let alone mp3 and Nikes. PS Pythagoras could spell Pythagoras, even then. But we've got Encarta! That settles it.. Yup without all those dead Greeks n stuff - The unexamined life isn't worth living ..would never even come up. More time saved! for ummm HDTV? :-)
Post #63,360 by Brandioch 11/17/02 1:22:18 AM Reply	Think about what philosophy has taught you. For me, it's that there is no right/wrong or good/evil. Only points of view based on an individual's value system. And a lot about thought and logic and rationality. Now, I'm sure you can see many cases where such "studies" would not be considered "appropriate". Particularly when one does NOT want one's system of "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong" brought into question.
Post #63,373 by wharris2 11/17/02 7:17:15 AM Reply	And that's what's wrong with you Mind you, I had a "liberal arts" education, which means I wasn't in a diploma/trade school mill. For me, it's that there is no right/wrong or good/evil. There, I think, we have a fundamental difference. There are some things that are right, and there are some things that are wrong. There is evil in the world (and it doesn't matter if you believe in God, Ghu, Thor, or whatever - there's still evil people and evil things being done in the world.) When someone indoctrinates a kid into thinking it's heroic to walk into a night club with a bomb strapped to his back, that's evil. It's evil to hijack a plane and ram it into a Very Big Building in New York. It's good to thwart such an act, even at the cost of your own life.
Post #63,377 by Brandioch 11/17/02 7:57:26 AM Reply	One can attend class and still not be "educated". There, I think, we have a fundamental difference. That's obvious. I, for one, do not believe that a Free country should be administering loyalty oaths to children. I believe that such is the hallmark of opressive regimes such as: #1. Germany #2. The Soviet Union #3. Iraq #4. The PLO And so forth. But, what can I say. I went to college for a degree in computer science. There are some things that are right, and there are some things that are wrong. Looking at your position on other issues, I'd say that you are wrong about what is right. There is evil in the world (and it doesn't matter if you believe in God, Ghu, Thor, or whatever - there's still evil people and evil things being done in the world.) Like what? Let's take a simple example - slavery. It is "wrong" to own slaves. To buy and sell other human beings. Yet our country was founded by people who did just that. When someone indoctrinates a kid into thinking it's heroic to walk into a night club with a bomb strapped to his back, that's evil. You're the one pushing for indoctrinating children with loyalty oaths. Oh, you don't see the linkage there, do you? Like I said, it's point of view. It's evil to hijack a plane and ram it into a Very Big Building in New York. But it's not evil to drop a bomb on a bunch of civilians who happen to born in a country that you are at war with? Hmmm, killing innocent civilians or killing innocent civilians. One is wrong while the other is right. It's good to thwart such an act, even at the cost of your own life. Does that mean it would be good to stop the killing of civilians even if it cost you your own life? I don't see you out there trying to stop our invasion of Iraq at the cost of your own life. And I can guarantee you that Iraqi civilians WILL DIE if we invade. Like I said, it's all point of view. "They" are "bad" for killing our civilians. "We" are "good" when we kill their civilians (who aren't really dead, just collaterally damaged with extreme prejudice). "They" are "wrong" because they kill and die for "evil" causes. "We" are "right" because we kill and die for "good" causes. We will invade Iraq and kill civilians who's only crime was to be born in Iraq and we will do that because we want control of the oil.
Post #63,476 by Ashton 11/17/02 7:55:18 PM Reply	Small factual error noted: Does that mean it would be good to stop the killing of civilians even if it cost you your own life? I don't see you out there trying to stop our invasion of Iraq at the cost of your own life. And I can guarantee you that Iraqi civilians WILL DIE if we invade. Like I said, it's all point of view. "They" are "bad" for killing our civilians. Wrong part of the Evil- [New Empire List - see WSJ for daily change of those matriculated]. Last I heard, and despite use of all resources of the spookiest spooks that $US can buy: no one has had any success in finding evidence of complicity of The Aging Evil Saddam.. in 9/11 or the ships or embassies.. or anything much since the alleged plot to off the current Scion of the Prescott Bush clan, the Elder Bush (orig. innovator of Bush-speak as a meaningful noun). As you have observed: THIS next Opener War-of-a-Series, is entirely about might. Might of arms? (no contest there). Nope that's not it. Might.. as in, A) Because they don't like US a lot or even a little. B) Because their Leader wishes to possess a fraction of the WMD -gotta love the effects of Bizspeak TLAs Everywhere- a fraction of what We Gots [and a lot of other folks got and are workin in] C) Because we aren't.. quite.. certain IF - he actually has still a large wish? any? a token amount? a N.Korea-type unknown but scary-for-not-Knowing amount? D) Because some 25ish% of the region's [oil] happens to be there. He MIGHT [that kind of might] be some future threat to US hegemony and All That [Oil]\ufffd \ufffd Standard Oil and its Successors. ie This shall be a First-Strike\ufffd against a sovereign Terrestrial nation - prompted by the abject Fearfulness of a nation of sheep, led by an opportunist alleged bizness $-absconder - and justifed on the grounds of aforementioned might.. I hope this clears up any ambiguities in readers from sheltered areas of the Solar system - as to where we are going and why (?) We can leave aside the Righteous aspect of our plans - that is a Corporate religious area of entrail reading and bathos. Ashton
Post #63,477 by boxley 11/17/02 8:15:26 PM Reply	yes virginioch there is good and evil I have looked into the gace of pure evil up close and personal and it is as banal and stupid as it is ugly. I have seen the face of truly good and a light shines from it. many times ethics are situational but do not mistake that for there being no true evil. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,481 by wharris2 11/17/02 8:39:28 PM 11/17/02 8:41:14 PM Reply	Vallient job, box trying to preach to those who have minds but don't use them. Edited by wharris2 Nov. 17, 2002, 08:41:14 PM EST Expand All History
Post #63,485 by Brandioch 11/17/02 9:00:04 PM Reply	Can you give more details? Or send me a picture of evil?
Post #63,487 by boxley 11/17/02 9:18:31 PM Reply	have a f2f with chuck visit your local crackhouse, most will be just poor deranged creatures but one or two will not, look for it and you will find it. For good, visit St. Sunrises over the Mountain in Providence Nursing home in Anchorage. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,506 by Brandioch 11/18/02 12:05:41 AM Reply	That is "evil"? A crackhead is "evil"? I have looked into the gace of pure evil up close and personal and it is as banal and stupid as it is ugly. So, give them enough crack, food, TV and a warm place to sleep and they will happily rot their remaining years. This is "evil"? I will agree with the banal and stupid and ugly. I'd also include self-absorbed and self-destructive. But "evil"? Give them enough crack and they'll skip eating & drinking and vacate this realm even quicker. Sorry, but I don't see drug addicts as "evil". I'll check out the nursing home next time I'm in Anchorage. Anyone / Anything I should ask for in particular?
Post #63,570 by boxley 11/18/02 10:57:28 AM Reply	re-read my post I didnt say all of the crackheads were evil and agree with all of your points about the ones that arnt evil. If you visit a lot of crack houses it will only be a matter of time before you will see true evil. Just ask for the name I gave you at the front desk, they know who he is. And how come no comment about chuck? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,578 by Brandioch 11/18/02 11:21:12 AM Reply	Who's Chuck? I've seen a lot of addicts. But I've never seen any of them that I would describe as "evil". Again, they're addicts. Supply them with enough of their drugs and they will happily end their own lives. They are banal, venal, and most of all, sad. The worst ones are no more "evil" than a rabid dog.
Post #63,588 by boxley 11/18/02 11:48:04 AM Reply	"chuck don surf" chuck aka charles manson evil guarrantied will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,594 by Brandioch 11/18/02 11:57:48 AM Reply	Manson is insane, deranged, nuts, mentally incompetant, etc. But "evil"? Again, he is no more "evil" than a rabid dog is "evil". If he was released, he'd have trouble buying groceries. The only reason he's still alive is that the state keeps him in a controlled environment. And our own "Green River Killer" has a higher body count, if you're going by murders.
Post #63,596 by boxley 11/18/02 12:03:38 PM Reply	none of the above chuck is entirely sane not deranged at all(holds a clear rating) mentaly incompetant? His writings are clear and concise, well designeed to get the effect he desires. If let out of jail he would not have trouble adjusting if he wasnt killed by an aggreived family member of one of his victims. Much more dangerous than a rabid dog who snaps at everything. The man is "Evil" your wishing away that he is not doesnt change anything. By your description of him it is obvious your knowledge is cursory. Look into it if you are interested. thanx, Bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,607 by Brandioch 11/18/02 12:47:07 PM Reply	I've seen him in interviews. He does not appear to be "sane" in the interviews I have seen. [link\|http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/manson92.html\|Manson] Look for the phrase "paranoid delusional".
Post #63,622 by boxley 11/18/02 2:32:04 PM Reply	ROFL! INMATE MANSON: Nine black Muslims and three Mexicans signed a writ that said I was Jesus Christ. Is that reality to you as well? PRESIDING BOARD COMMISSIONER KOENIG: I didn't read that in the Board report. INMATE MANSON: Oh, well it's in the record. and you couldnt figure out he was fucking with them? Is that real to you as well? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,642 by Brandioch 11/18/02 3:50:46 PM Reply	What? You said he was EVIL. Okay, so assume he's fucking with the board. The board that will decide to release him or keep him in prison. So the board decided to NOT parole him. So he stayed in prison. The evil decided upon a course of action that resulted in its continuing incarceration. The evil decided upon a course of action that ensured it would not harm society. The evil chose society's safety over its freedom. Okay, maybe I'm not clear on what "evil" is. But that does seem to fit the definition for "insane". He is incapable of realizing the situation and acting appropriately.
Post #63,645 by boxley 11/18/02 3:54:15 PM Reply	okay, now explain why Herr Hitler was not evil Its fun watching you turn inside out to stretch into your weejums :-) thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,648 by Brandioch 11/18/02 4:03:11 PM Reply	There are only 6 billion people in the world? Okay, we've finished with Manson, right? That only leave 5,999,999,999 to go. You said that YOU had MET evil. That EVIL does EXIST. I said that evil does not exist. Your examples, so far have been drug addiction and insanity. You were wrong about Manson's psychiatric rating, you were wrong about Manson's verbal skills. So, now we have to dissect Hitler. Can we just skip the case-by-case analysis and skip to the final example of "evil"? I'd rather not right-shift this any more than necessary.
Post #63,657 by boxley 11/18/02 4:28:32 PM Reply	lets go ---> you were entirely wrong about Manson first you made off the cuff remarks that showed you do not have in depth knowledge of the subject. Vince Bugliousi was the prosecutor and his take is that chuck is entirely sane and he spent 4 years of his life on that case. If you think that Vince with his "personal" knowledge of manson is wrong and you are right, you need the assistance of the professionals as much as you think mr mansun does. I said I have met evil and looked it in the face, you ascribe that it is not possible. Either you are confused or I am. Or you havnt seen anything you would ascribe as evil yet. Since you have no experience and I "claim" I have it leaves somewhat of an impass. So we can either right shift unti BP gets back or go squabble about something else. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,660 by Brandioch 11/18/02 4:45:53 PM Reply	Okay. Vince Bugliousi was the prosecutor and his take is that chuck is entirely sane and he spent 4 years of his life on that case. Yes. And Vince was the prosecutor. Prosecutor. Like in "District Attourney". Not a psychologist? No. [link\|http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonothers.html\|Vince] So, Vince wants Manson sane so Manson does not get off on an insanity plea. Just reading the transcript I posted earlier should be enough to show you that Manson's not sane. If you think that Vince with his "personal" knowledge of manson is wrong and you are right, you need the assistance of the professionals as much as you think mr mansun does. Again, Vince is NOT a trained psychologist or psychiatrist. Only those are qualified to say whether Manson is sane or not. I said I have met evil and looked it in the face, you ascribe that it is not possible. That is true. Either you are confused or I am. Possibly. But then I don't believe that drug addiction or insanity are "evil". Or you havnt seen anything you would ascribe as evil yet. Well, if I had, then I probably wouldn't say that there isn't any evil, correct? Since you have no experience and I "claim" I have it leaves somewhat of an impass. Unless you can provide an example that can be verified. So we can either right shift unti BP gets back or go squabble about something else. I'm tired of right shift. I'll drop this here.
Post #63,666 by boxley 11/18/02 7:22:06 PM Reply	deal ^oo^ will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,667 by altmann 11/18/02 7:23:11 PM Reply	>> "Just reading the transcript I posted earlier should be enough to show you that Manson's not sane". ... "Again, Vince is NOT a trained psychologist or psychiatrist. Only those are qualified to say whether Manson is sane or not". You should probably space assertions like that a bit further apart in future posts. ;) -- Chris Altmann
Post #63,671 by bepatient 11/18/02 7:57:57 PM Reply	You didn't need me. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #63,689 by deSitter 11/18/02 9:21:19 PM Reply	Evil as you describe it ..is just the "unredeemable" soul that was discussed elsewhere. -drl
Post #63,710 by boxley 11/18/02 10:57:25 PM Reply	beg to disagree an unreedemable soul is not evil as there is no such thing, evil is a calculated choice by an entity that sublimates the soul of a human or acts independently of human essence. Elementals are not evil per se as they do not have capacity for processing thought. Demons are another matter, they are evil as a matter of choice and in every case will choose that which brings chaos and harm to humans and the astral. Human evil is a soul that has turned itself to evil deliberately and with forethought and much meditation and intention to do evil. Are they unreedeemable souls? No. Is it likely they will be redeemed? Probably not but there has been a few cases where that has happened. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,736 by Ashton 11/19/02 3:42:21 AM Reply	Judeo- the Christian form of martial arts, has brought into the language these concepts. Psychology, a wannabe-science - but at least one based on observation - has another kind of model. And most any shrink or other observer of our-type animals will say: No One.. ever believes self to be evil! 'Evil' is a religio-word as are demons, incubii, succubi etc. [Nasty Words whose superstitious overtones led to lots of tortured children and older, in Salem and elsewhere] Just as Old Nick, Satan, Beelzebub.. stories of fallen angels yada yada have mesmerized folks. Just as 'things which go bump in the night' generated those images from the state of our fear of the unknown. We come equipped with a vivid imagination. You imagine there's anything New today re the above processes? Transistors can make the internal fearfulness of the I Don't Know's just.. go away silently? A Hitler will tell you that the 'steps' he took were for the (cosmically) Correct placement of \ufffdbermensch into ruling positions over lower; lesser beings. These Supermen, aided by eugenics (phrenology and other imaginined 'science' too) - would be an Improved Species\ufffd. As you are doubtless aware, ensconced in Castle W___ (too lazy to look it up) were His versions of the baggage of a couple millennia of Demonologies, only his choice was to enshrine Erda and other Teutonic fantasies instead of Christian ones. Difference? Only in the attributes and names: in every case inventions of human minds. QED Evil? depends upon the scale of "doing Good" one looks at.. in this "world of dualisms" and the umm collateral damage on that Great Undertaking. Evil.. to seek progress? Which entity shall judge? (We see that "collateral damage" is alive and well as YAN throwaway-line in 2002. Hmmm.) Mad then? That returns us to the pseudo-science of determining basic functional error in the mind/brain - a machinelike synergy only occasionally visited by that (too readily attributed): Original Thought. (We have to try for some model like this - but we need not imagine that the model is more than a crude approximation of our physical and metaphysical 'being'.) Sorry but.. my view is that our sordid history of fright-derived 'entities' and concepts like 'Evil' - which we associate with the behaviour of some of these phantasms: has done and always shall lead to endless succession of warring 'herders of different-named fantasies'. No change in sight, until we are done with the toys of childhood and recognize that WE must construct societies whose laws and mores tend to promote "good behaviour" towards sentient animals and respect.. for the others. Ditto laws and mores which provide deterrence and finally punishment or incarceration for "bad behaviour". (Killing off the defectives - merely devalues the above societal intent to foster respect. It's hypocritical and it doesn't deter 'badness', we have noticed. States killing people is .. rilly a stupid way of teaching 'goodness') We don't need a Demonology to accomplish this - we merely need to grow up. And along the way: lose the freight (and the fright) of our primitive period. Ashton not holding breath PS - Manson? I don't care what you want to call him or attribute his behaviour to: keep a wall between him and the rest of the zoo. It's the best we can do, ignorant as we are. He's where he belongs. We got that one right. It happens.
Post #63,829 by Brandioch 11/19/02 2:34:27 PM Reply	"Evil" and "Good" are magical incantations. Evil? depends upon the scale of "doing Good" one looks at.. in this "world of dualisms" and the umm collateral damage on that Great Undertaking. Evil.. to seek progress? Which entity shall judge? I'd agree. Sorry but.. my view is that our sordid history of fright-derived 'entities' and concepts like 'Evil' - which we associate with the behaviour of some of these phantasms: has done and always shall lead to endless succession of warring 'herders of different-named fantasies'. Again, I'd agree. No change in sight, until we are done with the toys of childhood and recognize that WE must construct societies whose laws and mores tend to promote "good behaviour" towards sentient animals and respect.. for the others. Ditto laws and mores which provide deterrence and finally punishment or incarceration for "bad behaviour". (Killing off the defectives - merely devalues the above societal intent to foster respect. It's hypocritical and it doesn't deter 'badness', we have noticed. States killing people is .. rilly a stupid way of teaching 'goodness') Step #1. Determine what is "good". That is, determine what the basic values, mores, etc will be. Step #2. Determine what is "bad". That is, determine what the taboos and such are. Be able to express these in societal context. We don't need a Demonology to accomplish this - we merely need to grow up. And along the way: lose the freight (and the fright) of our primitive period. :) If I may borrow your phrase, no one thinks of themselves as "immature" or "primative" or "superstitious". We also need to realize that society is NOT something layered upon a group of people. Society IS that group of people. The same thing with politics. Society and politics are BOTH derived from the group. Which was the point of my posting on Fascism. Deconstruct society and the laws and the politics and you get...... The individual. Determine WHAT it is in the individual that results in various societies and political systems and so forth. We don't need magical terms like "good" or "evil" for this. This is nothing more or less than the INDIVIDUAL's value system in practice. When someone's value system clashes with your value system, then that person is "evil". On the other hand, when your value system clashes with the other person's value system, then you are "evil". When his value system supports your value system, he is "good". etc. Now, since it is very unlikely that both value systems are complete opposites......... In fact, the value system of "whatever I want, I should have" usually leads to conflict AMONGST PEOPLE WITH THE EXACT SAME VALUE SYSTEM.
Post #63,865 by Ashton 11/19/02 5:34:21 PM Reply	Did you just define 'Rugged Induhvidualism' ?? [cackle] In fact, the value system of "whatever I want, I should have" usually leads to conflict AMONGST PEOPLE WITH THE EXACT SAME VALUE SYSTEM. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. ..sometimes the Simple is not simplistic. Yup, there it be in a wacko-Nut-shell. The Brits have a briefer summary IIRC, I'm alright, Jack... I have a dream.. Someday we shall evolve to the stage wherein we shall be ready for self-Government. If.. we're here long enough. If. Ashton meanwhile it's the Ren & Stimpy Show writ large
Post #64,389 by deSitter 11/21/02 8:34:25 PM Reply	Ash. you're fascinated by religion -drl I'm so happy I could scalp someone. Mark Twain
Post #64,436 by Ashton 11/22/02 12:16:05 AM Reply	It's fundamental to aberrant homo-sap behaviour.
Post #64,390 by deSitter 11/21/02 8:46:16 PM Reply	Now I know why you embrace anarchy You chased all the order over to good vs. evil. Evil, if it is real, will have a form and a substance. Example: The usual model is spirit in body, which is lame. More like, I am a thing with a soul and a body, but in myself different from either. I am a bridge. And so two things are completed by a third. A thing can have a form but no substance (a triangle) or a substance without form (eternity) but it isn't real unless experience reveals the opposite, and the two ideas live in your mind at once in a sort of superposition. That is the same thing as the bridge between body and spirit. The strange thing is, in a sense evil is an unawareness of the split between form and substance - the kind of awareness you get from the bridge. And so given the three part nature of all this, good is possible because it is aware of evil. -drl I'm so happy I could scalp someone. Mark Twain
Post #64,427 by boxley 11/21/02 11:22:13 PM Reply	nope. more simplistic I have met people who upon first impression I have agonized whether to stop their heart right now, later events prove that I should have "perhaps" done so and suffered the consequences rather than let them keep breathing. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] I leave symbolism for symboltons, Carlin
Post #63,748 by wharris2 11/19/02 7:25:48 AM Reply	You can't deal with Brandi, Box Liberal left-wing commie pinkos never listen to reason. :=)
Post #63,858 by boxley 11/19/02 4:31:05 PM Reply	he's actually a conservative with sleeves will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,940 by Brandioch 11/19/02 11:00:06 PM Reply	Or anarchist. Or Libertarian. I guess it depends upon where you stand. Examples: I believe that the individual should have all the rights contained in our Constitution (and more). But these rights mean that the individual has responsibilities to society (city, state, nation). I believe that everyone should have the same rights. Right up until they break the law. I believe that all laws that do not SPECIFICALLY deal with protecting people or property should be abolished. That includes the "war on drugs". You should be able to purchase any drug you want for home consumption. I assume that everyone is a responsible adult. But, if you are convicted of a crime while under the influence, you will complete a de-tox program and treatment. You will also lose the right to own a weapon for 10 years. Because I can be convinced that certain individuals are not responsible adults. And so forth. Fewer laws, more rights. A mechanism for removing the problem cases from society.
Post #63,954 by boxley 11/20/02 12:07:49 AM Reply	no yer not I am I believe that everyone should have the same rights. Right up until they break the law. whose law your or mine. I dont recognise yours unless it fits mine But, if you are convicted of a crime while under the influence, you will complete a de-tox program and treatment. You will also lose the right to own a weapon for 10 years. Because I can be convinced that certain individuals are not responsible adults. A crime as defined by whom. If I cuss out someone in Michegan I am convicted of a crime and cannot own a weapon for 10 years? BS . Example, I piss on the sidewalk, that is a crime everywhere. I cant own a gun while I piss on the sidewalk again? WTF! I get into a barroom brawl(escalation) I am carrying a gun but just fistfight. I cannot own a weapon for 10 yrs? (weapon as defined in some jurisdictions asa owning a blade more than 2 inches long which means I have to GUM my food for 10years? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #64,070 by Brandioch 11/20/02 12:27:33 PM Reply	That's it. If you can't follow the law, you can't own a weapon. If I cuss out someone in Michegan I am convicted of a crime and cannot own a weapon for 10 years? BS . Hmmm, sounds like an anger control issue. Definately not someone I'd trust with a gun. Example, I piss on the sidewalk, that is a crime everywhere. I cant own a gun while I piss on the sidewalk again? WTF! Poor impulse control. Again, not someone I'd trust with a gun. I get into a barroom brawl(escalation) I am carrying a gun but just fistfight. I cannot own a weapon for 10 yrs? (weapon as defined in some jurisdictions asa owning a blade more than 2 inches long which means I have to GUM my food for 10years? Again, a demonstratable problem with anger control. Not a person I'd recommend own a weapon.
Post #64,080 by boxley 11/20/02 1:35:00 PM Reply	then you are not an anarchist but a conservative will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,873 by Ashton 11/19/02 6:05:36 PM Reply	Yawn.. the plea of the unarmed in any conflict. Et tu?

Welcome to IWETHEY!