I'm not anything about right and wrong. Mainly, as for my post regarding FFG's opinions (or ideologies or values, lol), I'm talking about better English, better communication.
Okay.
I'm saying he's right about the differentiation between morality, politics, economics, etc.
And I'm seeing that he's been saying if we are missing this fine point, we, who look at more of the big picture, are distorting what we see. And that's correct.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm saying he's right about the differentiation between morality, politics, economics, etc.
And I'm seeing that he's been saying if we are missing this fine point, we, who look at more of the big picture, are distorting what we see. And that's correct.
Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)
It would be if you did a revision to many of FFG's post with a pre-emptive "In My Ideolgy" or "My ideology works like this". He doesn't come across that way, though. And whenever he is challenged he falls back into the "what value is to me? or what value is it to you?" mode.
It's a tiresome shtick.
See, I believe criticisms are "non-existent" points. So I gloss over the points. It's hard for me to "listen to" and understand them. I gloss over all kinds of criticisms on this board. I think they come from a flawed premise.
Now constructive criticism--where it is presented as a positive case, regarding an inaccuracy, that I can grasp. (and it takes more than a smiley face to make a criticism constructive. )
What he said stood on it's own because it was a truthful existing principle, presented as such. There was no "it would be" imo.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
See, I believe criticisms are "non-existent" points. So I gloss over the points. It's hard for me to "listen to" and understand them. I gloss over all kinds of criticisms on this board. I think they come from a flawed premise.
Now constructive criticism--where it is presented as a positive case, regarding an inaccuracy, that I can grasp. (and it takes more than a smiley face to make a criticism constructive. )
What he said stood on it's own because it was a truthful existing principle, presented as such. There was no "it would be" imo.
A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.
I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.
Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed.
A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.
Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.
I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.
In practical terms, I disagree with little Libertarian ideology. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed. Most importantly, I disagree that a limited state is, by default, "good". Only what people then do, absent that state influence, can be "good" or "bad". In other words, Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards.
I think you're just a mammal that has a lot of time to think about nothing.
Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)
See the double-speak?
You are thinking differently than I do. I am seeing that he presented a case and no amount of criticism can minimize what he said, so I speak to that.
Now on the other hand, you may have a case here, it's just that I don't really "hear" negatives. I didn't notice the points you are making, either. My own agendaed filters picked up on something different. My agenda has nothing to do with finding fault with farfromglorified. It has to do with understanding what he's saying. I'm not saying your view is inaccurate in any way, just that I don't even look in that direction.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)
I say it would be hard, everywhere. What I don't say is that it's impossible. It's not "double-speak". It's simply understanding that war is not just a function of political structure, but also of morality and economic means.
I believe socialist and statist political positions do much to promote war and violence. But it's entirely possible to have a socialist structure that is purely peaceful. The morality of the individuals involved will dictate it as much as the political structure in which they live.
I say it would be hard, everywhere. What I don't say is that it's impossible. It's not "double-speak". It's simply understanding that war is not just a function of political structure, but also of morality and economic means.
I believe socialist and statist political positions do much to promote war and violence. But it's entirely possible to have a socialist structure that is purely peaceful. The morality of the individuals involved will dictate it as much as the political structure in which they live.
And what do you suppose determines that morality? Obviously a corrupt, immoral leader, such as the president is, cannot deter the morality of his people. Or, can he?
And what do you suppose determines that morality? Obviously a corrupt, immoral leader, such as the president is, cannot deter the morality of his people. Or, can he?
Morality emerges from the values a person holds. The values a person holds can either be dictated by themselves, by society, or a mixture of the two. In other words, a president (good or evil) can certainly determine the morality of witless subjects.
Morality emerges from the values a person holds. The values a person holds can either be dictated by themselves, by society, or a mixture of the two. In other words, a president (good or evil) can certainly determine the morality of witless subjects.
So, under your system, the "witless" should suffer the consequences of their witlessness?
Sounds primal.
Or, blaming (blaming is the key word here: your word) on the victims themselves.
The witless are victims of their own witlessness. So yes, I'm blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the transgressor. A suicide is always primarily the fault of the suicidal, even though he is also the victim.
If you're against "blaming" period, that's perfectly cool. But that would mean you couldn't blame me for my own positions. So I don't think you're against blaming unless it helps you out of a jam.
The witless are victims of their own witlessness. So yes, I'm blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the transgressor. A suicide is always primarily the fault of the suicidal, even though he is also the victim.
If you're against "blaming" period, that's perfectly cool. But that would mean you couldn't blame me for my own positions. So I don't think you're against blaming unless it helps you out of a jam.
Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.
Should I be concerned about you?
The more you're concerned about me, the better I'm probably doing.
Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.
So, how do you feel about these "transgressions" within the larger picture? Do you feel the "transgressions" stand alone, in a vaccum, so to speak, or do you see that even those at the bottom of the totem pole have a valid a necessary position in the evolutionary overview? I'd love to hear some detail in your answer, if at all possible.
edit: my apologies, people, for the fact that I seem to perpetually misspell "vacuum".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So, how do you feel about these "transgressions" within the larger picture? Do you feel the "transgressions" stand alone, in a vaccum, so to speak, or do you see that even those at the bottom of the totem pole have a valid a necessary position in the evolutionary overview? I'd love to hear some detail in your answer, if at all possible.
In order to answer your question in detail, I'll need you to define "valid necessary position in the evolutionary overview". I have no idea what this means. Do you mean evolution in the sense of biological evolution, moral evolution, political evolution, all, or something else? By "valid" to you mean just or correct or something else? By necessary to you mean predetermined or destined or something else?
Certainly I see people occupying positions on the "totem pole" for reasons. They aren't there "just because". They are where they are because of choices and actions, both their own and others'. The specific nature of those choices and actions would dictate the validity and necessity of those positions, along with the evolutionary path they are set upon.
Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.
The more you're concerned about me, the better I'm probably doing.
Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."
Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.
No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.
Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.
No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.
In order to answer your question in detail, I'll need you to define "valid necessary position in the evolutionary overview". I have no idea what this means. Do you mean evolution in the sense of biological evolution, moral evolution, political evolution, all, or something else? By "valid" to you mean just or correct or something else? By necessary to you mean predetermined or destined or something else?
Okay. Yeah, I mean in all of reality, as it stands--All.
Certainly I see people occupying positions on the "totem pole" for reasons. They aren't there "just because". They are where they are because of choices and actions, both their own and others'. The specific nature of those choices and actions would dictate the validity and necessity of those positions, along with the evolutionary path they are set upon.
I think my real question is pertaining to the fact that I think that you and I agree that everything is happening for a reason, and is exactly the way it is for that reason. And therefore the person who is playing the "witless" role, is there for a reason, like someone playing the "intelligent" role. And part of the perfection is that we accept the consequences of those perfect roles, whether we realize it or not. And within this logic, everything is the way it is NOW. It's not the way a libertarian view would like it to be. So, considering the reality and the perfection of everything that IS, including that you are being held as a slave of the system, it is what it is, in my view--it's reality, and it's for a reason. Then that means an objectivist worldview, or a libertarian one, or a New Age one for that, are all just mental ideas, and therefore are not reasonable in terms of application, at this time, besides the degree that they have currently invaded the system, or the degree that they have the potential to.
You argue your ideals, which is great, but I'd like to hear your view of what exists. Such as what I've mentioned here. What do you think of the present overview? Do you agree with my assessment above?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."
Why? Is a suicide blameless?
Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter.
That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.
A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.
Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.
No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.
I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.
If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?
A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?
That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.
Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.
I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.
If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?
A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?
You're nuts.
It was a simple statement. One that you can't seem to absorb, which is probably true of many people.
I left off at 'basic emotions' but you certainly didn't add anything to it from there.
From there, I could have written about teaching/learning, child development, storytelling, music, the seasons of a man's life, etc...that sort of thing.
We've got to have some common ground here, but you seem to be hostile to that idea. Unless it's about Ron Paul.
A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.
I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.
Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed.
Do your political purposes extend from the primary moral principles of Objectivism? And what may those primary moral principles be?
I recall you criticizing Ayn Rand's moral principles...if my recollection is correct, was that regarding Ayn Rand's moral principles that had been further extended from the primary principles?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Definitely! There are many good corporations in China, just like there are many bad ones.
how do you know the difference? have you researched every company before you buy their product?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
I'm saying he's right about the differentiation between morality, politics, economics, etc.
And I'm seeing that he's been saying if we are missing this fine point, we, who look at more of the big picture, are distorting what we see. And that's correct.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)
See the double-speak?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Now constructive criticism--where it is presented as a positive case, regarding an inaccuracy, that I can grasp. (and it takes more than a smiley face to make a criticism constructive.
What he said stood on it's own because it was a truthful existing principle, presented as such. There was no "it would be" imo.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
see above post.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.
I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.
Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed.
I think you're just a mammal that has a lot of time to think about nothing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Now on the other hand, you may have a case here, it's just that I don't really "hear" negatives. I didn't notice the points you are making, either. My own agendaed filters picked up on something different. My agenda has nothing to do with finding fault with farfromglorified. It has to do with understanding what he's saying. I'm not saying your view is inaccurate in any way, just that I don't even look in that direction.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I say it would be hard, everywhere. What I don't say is that it's impossible. It's not "double-speak". It's simply understanding that war is not just a function of political structure, but also of morality and economic means.
I believe socialist and statist political positions do much to promote war and violence. But it's entirely possible to have a socialist structure that is purely peaceful. The morality of the individuals involved will dictate it as much as the political structure in which they live.
I am a mammal. And you can't think about "nothing". You can, however, not think.
Sure you can, but that's just semantics.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And what do you suppose determines that morality? Obviously a corrupt, immoral leader, such as the president is, cannot deter the morality of his people. Or, can he?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Morality emerges from the values a person holds. The values a person holds can either be dictated by themselves, by society, or a mixture of the two. In other words, a president (good or evil) can certainly determine the morality of witless subjects.
So, under your system, the "witless" should suffer the consequences of their witlessness?
Sounds primal.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Sure. I prefer suicide to murder-suicide.
Primal would be blaming "witlessness" on spirits and ghosts, or even worse, pretending it doesn't exist.
Or, blaming (blaming is the key word here: your word) on the victims themselves.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The witless are victims of their own witlessness. So yes, I'm blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the transgressor. A suicide is always primarily the fault of the suicidal, even though he is also the victim.
If you're against "blaming" period, that's perfectly cool. But that would mean you couldn't blame me for my own positions. So I don't think you're against blaming unless it helps you out of a jam.
Why are you talking about suicide?
Should I be concerned about you?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.
The more you're concerned about me, the better I'm probably doing.
edit: my apologies, people, for the fact that I seem to perpetually misspell "vacuum".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In order to answer your question in detail, I'll need you to define "valid necessary position in the evolutionary overview". I have no idea what this means. Do you mean evolution in the sense of biological evolution, moral evolution, political evolution, all, or something else? By "valid" to you mean just or correct or something else? By necessary to you mean predetermined or destined or something else?
Certainly I see people occupying positions on the "totem pole" for reasons. They aren't there "just because". They are where they are because of choices and actions, both their own and others'. The specific nature of those choices and actions would dictate the validity and necessity of those positions, along with the evolutionary path they are set upon.
Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."
Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.
No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
This is not ideology. It is fact.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think my real question is pertaining to the fact that I think that you and I agree that everything is happening for a reason, and is exactly the way it is for that reason. And therefore the person who is playing the "witless" role, is there for a reason, like someone playing the "intelligent" role. And part of the perfection is that we accept the consequences of those perfect roles, whether we realize it or not. And within this logic, everything is the way it is NOW. It's not the way a libertarian view would like it to be. So, considering the reality and the perfection of everything that IS, including that you are being held as a slave of the system, it is what it is, in my view--it's reality, and it's for a reason. Then that means an objectivist worldview, or a libertarian one, or a New Age one for that, are all just mental ideas, and therefore are not reasonable in terms of application, at this time, besides the degree that they have currently invaded the system, or the degree that they have the potential to.
You argue your ideals, which is great, but I'd like to hear your view of what exists. Such as what I've mentioned here. What do you think of the present overview? Do you agree with my assessment above?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And those that do, it is to varying degrees, as per Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
In other words, no one ever said life is fair.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why? Is a suicide blameless?
That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.
Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.
I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.
If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?
A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?
You're nuts.
It was a simple statement. One that you can't seem to absorb, which is probably true of many people.
I left off at 'basic emotions' but you certainly didn't add anything to it from there.
From there, I could have written about teaching/learning, child development, storytelling, music, the seasons of a man's life, etc...that sort of thing.
We've got to have some common ground here, but you seem to be hostile to that idea. Unless it's about Ron Paul.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I recall you criticizing Ayn Rand's moral principles...if my recollection is correct, was that regarding Ayn Rand's moral principles that had been further extended from the primary principles?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties
www.myspace.com/jensvad
how do you know the difference? have you researched every company before you buy their product?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way