| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
spozmo
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 7:37 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | That's not a wild card though. You have to have an objective, or standard in order to have an "END" of any-kind.
You can't invent your objective AFTER you accomplish it, just as you can't invent your rules after you won the game, otherwise the concepts of "objective" or "game" are meaningless. |
| spozmo wrote: | | You can do that, but that's not what I'm proposing. You can arbitrarily invent the rules before the game. That is to say, you can arbitrarily decide an end and then pursue it. Within that structure, there are standards of winning, losing, and right conduct. In fact, that's exactly how all games work. I propose that it is also how moral systems work. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from?
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
| spozmo wrote: | | I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually. |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down? |
| spozmo wrote: | | It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Ok. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I suspect you won't accept anything other than your own opinion as "not an evasion". |
That's nice. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
I already did.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | I have not seen evidence for the existence of an absolute morality. |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | Well we aren't talking about some substance that is floating around in space.
The evidence for non-relative morality is no more elusive than the evidence for non-contradiction.
There are very few rules in this morality, and most people fallow them, weather they realise it or not. |
| spozmo wrote: | | There is evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". |
| Knight of BAAWA wrote: | | No, there isn't. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Was the concept of cleaving insufficient for you? |
Yes.
| spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
I am currently studying quantum physics.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh, but you are. You believe that it's wrong when done to YOU. You think it's ok when done to others. That's a rule, bubba, like it or fucking not. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Yes, because you're saying "it's wrong" while desperately trying to look like you're not saying it, you fucking little cowardly shit. Fuck off and die, you cowardly little fuck. Fuck off and die. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I'm not saying it's morally wrong. I'm saying I don't like it. |
And you're saying it shouldn't be done to you, but it's ok for it to be done to others. So you're saying it's morally wrong when done to you. |
Ignoring and refuting are not the same thing. I"m not saying that it "shouldn't" be done to me. I'm saying I don't want it to be done to me. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I thought I had a pretty good example with farting. Did you read my post at all?
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | CET wrote: | You have 3 options:
Live with it
Change it
Leave it
I can't think of anything that would take those options away.
|
| spozmo wrote: | | I see a problem with the first in that there is no way to leave all social contracts behind entirely. You have to pick an existing one because of the extent to which humans have occupied the available space on the globe. We can't really be hermits anymore, and we can't establish new societies. That doesn't eliminate the first option, but it certainly limits its application. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Nope. Live with it is precisely what you advocate, since all moral codes are just arbitrary and there's nothing you can really do, since trying to advocate for a different one, i.e. one that you prefer, means that you actually have to TAKE A FUCKING STAND. And there's no way a coward like you will ever, ever, take a stand on anything. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Given that I have taken a stand on many things, your assertion is incorrect. |
No, it's quite correct. You don't take a stand on anything, lest you actually be held to a position.
| spozmo wrote: | | I could offer examples for which I could not offer you verification, but luckily there is one right here. Moreover, there are ways to persuade people to do things other than morality. I would offer evidence, but you'll probably just delete all of my post but one word and then swear at me again. |
IOW: you've got nothing.
| spozmo wrote: | | I am taking a stand on the existence of morality, |
No you're not. You're just spouting fluff and thinking that it's a stand. |
What, may I ask, other than your opinion, would you consider a stand on whether or not morality exists? Can you give examples?
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche
"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
cheapsuprise
Liberated
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spozmo wrote: | I realized that I failed to address this earlier:
| cheapsuprise wrote: | That's not a wild card though. You have to have an objective, or standard in order to have an "END" of any-kind.
You can't invent your objective AFTER you accomplish it, just as you can't invent your rules after you won the game, otherwise the concepts of "objective" or "game" are meaningless. |
You can do that, but that's not what I'm proposing. You can arbitrarily invent the rules before the game. That is to say, you can arbitrarily decide an end and then pursue it. Within that structure, there are standards of winning, losing, and right conduct. In fact, that's exactly how all games work. I propose that it is also how moral systems work. |
All your saying is that you can "invent rules" and then fallow them.
This dosn't address weather or not the ends justify the means. Just because you invented some rules and then didn't break them dosn't mean that you didn't do anything wrong.
| Quote: |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | spozmo wrote: |
I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually. |
In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down? |
It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it. |
You have to unload the connotation to assert this though, "you might as well replace steel everything in your house, then burn your house down" with "X".
| Quote: | | If I were not playing the game, |
Why would you be "playing a game" where your house getting burned down by me was a rightful act?
| Quote: | | I would protest it by trying to persuade you to play a different sort of game. I might use an appeal to your emotions or to your benefit. |
You would be appealing to a moral context OTHER than the one I held then. Why should you expect this to work? Remember that TO ME, burning down your house is RIGHT. How could you possibly convince me that It was wrong?
| Quote: | I might propose a more beneficial game, for example. Within the game, I would presumably have some options. I might fight you or exact retribution.
We would not share the same game, exactly. That's where the metaphor breaks down, it seems. You are playing within the rules of your own game. I may or may not consent to play along. We may be playing parallel or contradictory games. |
All the above realy states is that people could have vastly different "moral contexts" IOW, they THINK they are right. This is not much of a basis for morality, seeing as any one at any time can just claim to BE RIGHT. If some one else asks them to prove it, what are they going to do? Present an argument- based on what? Relativism is wrong because it's dependant upon the acknowledgement of a mutual reality.
| Quote: | | There is evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". See: cleave. |
There is no evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". <--- Is that statement true or false? This is a trick question btw.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spozmo
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 7:37 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | I realized that I failed to address this earlier:
| cheapsuprise wrote: | That's not a wild card though. You have to have an objective, or standard in order to have an "END" of any-kind.
You can't invent your objective AFTER you accomplish it, just as you can't invent your rules after you won the game, otherwise the concepts of "objective" or "game" are meaningless. |
You can do that, but that's not what I'm proposing. You can arbitrarily invent the rules before the game. That is to say, you can arbitrarily decide an end and then pursue it. Within that structure, there are standards of winning, losing, and right conduct. In fact, that's exactly how all games work. I propose that it is also how moral systems work. |
All your saying is that you can "invent rules" and then fallow them.
This dosn't address weather or not the ends justify the means. Just because you invented some rules and then didn't break them dosn't mean that you didn't do anything wrong. |
You're right; it doesn't address whether or not the ends justify the means. I'm still not convinced that "wrong" has any meaning outside of the arbitrary choice of one of these systems, though. Your second statement assumes the existence of objective morality.
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Quote: |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | spozmo wrote: |
I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually. |
In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down? |
It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it. |
You have to unload the connotation to assert this though, "you might as well replace steel everything in your house, then burn your house down" with "X". |
I'm not sure what "unload the connotation" means.
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Quote: | | If I were not playing the game, |
Why would you be "playing a game" where your house getting burned down by me was a rightful act? |
I wouldn't. It may not be relevant whether or not I am playing it.
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Quote: | | I would protest it by trying to persuade you to play a different sort of game. I might use an appeal to your emotions or to your benefit. |
You would be appealing to a moral context OTHER than the one I held then. Why should you expect this to work? Remember that TO ME, burning down your house is RIGHT. How could you possibly convince me that It was wrong? |
By making as aesthetic or emotional appeal. Why is everyone disregarding the farting example? It's a bit silly, but it's an example of an attempt to change a behavior that does not rely on morality. I propose that all behaviors may be modified in this way.
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Quote: | I might propose a more beneficial game, for example. Within the game, I would presumably have some options. I might fight you or exact retribution.
We would not share the same game, exactly. That's where the metaphor breaks down, it seems. You are playing within the rules of your own game. I may or may not consent to play along. We may be playing parallel or contradictory games. |
All the above realy states is that people could have vastly different "moral contexts" IOW, they THINK they are right. This is not much of a basis for morality, seeing as any one at any time can just claim to BE RIGHT. If some one else asks them to prove it, what are they going to do? Present an argument- based on what? Relativism is wrong because it's dependant upon the acknowledgement of a mutual reality. |
The argument could be based on force, aesthetics, or pleasure. It might be unsuccessful. It may be based on the shared assumption of certain non-moral principles, as well. The argument could even be based on a moral system, but it doesn't have to be true to be convincing. It could simply be a successful sophism. Your last sentence here assumes that morality falls out of this shared reality. I don't see that it does.
This sounds like an appeal to consequences. "If we didn't have an objective basis for morality, we'd have no basis for morality other than our opinions." Sure. I'll take that. And?
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Quote: | | There is evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". See: cleave. |
There is no evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". <--- Is that statement true or false? This is a trick question btw. |
[/quote]
Again, contextually, it is false. In terms of our experience of the things around us, it is false. We experience things which contradict each other, particularly the language use I described above with "cleave" and quanta.
In terms of the way in which we reason, it is true. I cannot hold two contradictory ideas as true within my reason at the same time about the same thing unless I am holding them in two different respects. My reason, though, leads me to both the use of the word "cleave" and to quantum physics (well... mine didn't lead me there, but somebody's did:)). Therefore, my reason leads to self-contradiction. I am not convinced there is some other faculty which doesn't.
Also, since when do people have to offer to prove the negative on these boards? It seems that the existence of objective morality and non-contradiction are taken as articles of faith. I refuse to take things on faith. Moreover, there is some apparent evidence against them both. I have offered some of this evidence. Therefore, I am an amoralist.
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche
"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:37 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
| spozmo wrote: | Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from? |
1. Laws are the codification for enforcement
2. From the fact that humans are made of and use scarce resources, and that to utilize those resources indicates a claim upon the self, i.e. self-ownership.
| spozmo wrote: | | I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually. |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down? |
| spozmo wrote: | | It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Ok. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I suspect you won't accept anything other than your own opinion as "not an evasion". |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | That's nice. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I already did. |
That's nice. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion.
| spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
| spozmo wrote: | | I am currently studying quantum physics. |
Then how is it you don't know shit about it?
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh, but you are. You believe that it's wrong when done to YOU. You think it's ok when done to others. That's a rule, bubba, like it or fucking not. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Yes, because you're saying "it's wrong" while desperately trying to look like you're not saying it, you fucking little cowardly shit. Fuck off and die, you cowardly little fuck. Fuck off and die. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I'm not saying it's morally wrong. I'm saying I don't like it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | And you're saying it shouldn't be done to you, but it's ok for it to be done to others. So you're saying it's morally wrong when done to you. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Ignoring and refuting are not the same thing. I"m not saying that it "shouldn't" be done to me. |
Yes, you are. That's why you'd try to get the person to not do it.
Fucking moron.
| spozmo wrote: | | I am taking a stand on the existence of morality, |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | No you're not. You're just spouting fluff and thinking that it's a stand. |
| spozmo wrote: | | What, may I ask, other than your opinion, would you consider a stand on whether or not morality exists? Can you give examples? |
Actually stating that there is or isn't such a thing as morality and being consistent about it. You're contradicting yourself, so there's no real stand, at least in the sense that your words and deeds don't match up.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 7:37 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
ahh.. KnoB at his 'finest'. 
new Amendment?
how about "Congress shall make no Amendment that will have the intent or effect of limiting any of the aforementioned freedoms OR that will have the intent or effect of ensuring a future freedom is denied, especially one based on race, gender, sexual preference or political affiliation.
...i'm lookn at YOU, "no gay marriage" laws... 
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 5035
Local time: 8:37 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | ahh.. KnoB at his 'finest'.
new Amendment?
how about "Congress shall make no Amendment that will have the intent or effect of limiting any of the aforementioned freedoms OR that will have the intent or effect of ensuring a future freedom is denied, especially one based on race, gender, sexual preference or political affiliation.
...i'm lookn at YOU, "no gay marriage" laws... |
I hate to say it, but I'd lay down $10 on an anti-gay marriage amendment happening before that one.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 7:37 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
thats what pisses me off so much... the Constitution is there to SECURE FREEDOMS... not take them away. an amendment to ban gay marriage would be the absolute antithesis of what the constitution stands for.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SvZurich
Loki's Little Valkyrie
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 23454
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly Moloth. Today I showed a coworker (who is 23 and very conservative, thinking Bush is great, sweet girl but so sheltered) the US Constitution and walked her through the Amendments and Article 1 section 6 (IIRC) on how Congress can travel between home and the Capital Building safe from arrest. I was explaining to her why she should refuse a request from the police to search a car (Amendment 4), why Bush wanting to wiretap and search emails without a warrant is wrong (Amendment 4 again), and explained why Amendment 2 is so oddly worded.
She had no clue and said it had been 5 years since she took a class on the Constitution. I told her it has been 16 years since I studied it in college, and that it is her right to know what her rights are.
I'll educate this girl yet.
_________________
Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2012 Presidential election!
The Atheist Forums have new rules! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 7:37 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
educate her long.. and hard, Kimmie. Fill her brain up. stuff knowledge into it, over and over again, if you have to, to get her to come... around to thinking.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SvZurich
Loki's Little Valkyrie
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 23454
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to.  She's young, slender, clean (no tattoos or unusual piercings), sweet, and solders parts for her old NES to make it work. And her mom is lesbian. 
Her mom raised her with a Republican Fundy mindset, taught her gays are horrible people, and then left her dad for another woman. 
And her "step-mom" (she hates that term) adores me. We used to work together. 
_________________
Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2012 Presidential election!
The Atheist Forums have new rules! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spozmo wrote: | | CET wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | CET wrote: | You have 3 options:
Live with it
Change it
Leave it
I can't think of anything that would take those options away. |
I see a problem with the first in that there is no way to leave all social contracts behind entirely. You have to pick an existing one because of the extent to which humans have occupied the available space on the globe. We can't really be hermits anymore, and we can't establish new societies. That doesn't eliminate the first option, but it certainly limits its application. |
We are social creatures, that's how we survive and thrive; cooperation and intelligence. To leave a social contract entirely means that you would live outside of society. Hermits do it, so I guess you could if you really wanted to, and there are ways to do that today. There isn't much advantage to that though. |
I agree, which is why I remain in this contract.
Also, people are saying some pretty specific things about the social contract, but it seems that Jason's explanation of it is the closest to what Rousseau said about it. Is everyone reading some other version of it? The social contract in his terms seemed to simply include that people entered it to protect themselves. Once the costs outweighed the benefits of the protection, they leave. Right now, the benefits seem clearly to outweigh the costs. This would also be the case with UHC, but it's still a bad idea. |
The Social Contract, in the simplest terms, is an agreement amongst a group of people on how to conduct themselves as individuals in the group. Put another way, the rule of law.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is something that I've always thought should have been in The Constitution. It's an "auto-sunset clause" amendment. How many laws do we have that don't do what they're supposed to do, or have unintended consequences that make them not worth it? Why don't all laws have a built-in sunset clause unless it actually does what it's supposed to do?
"Any bill signed into law must contain specific goals that must be met within a stated and reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 20 years, else the law is automatically repealed."
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3984
Local time: 2:37 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think any law could be repealed after a given amount of time, regardless of whether it meets it goals or not.
This way all laws would have to be constanlty revoted.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 4:37 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | I think any law could be repealed after a given amount of time, regardless of whether it meets it goals or not. |
That's not what actually happens though. Laws are left on the books. Often we don't even know why they were passed. Often, they do not do what they are intended to do, and produce unintended consequences. These laws are obviously not good to have on the books. Yet, everyone is so busy trying to pass new laws (usually almost completely willy nilly) there is no value seen in reviewing old laws and trying to repeal them.
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | This way all laws would have to be constanlty revoted. |
Good! That means that any law passed HAS to be reviewed and measured to be effective at what it was designed for. Laws are currently not accountable in anyway. If a law is effective, then the sunset clause does not apply and it is made permanent. The sunset clause only applies if it is not effective at what it is meant to do. All new laws are effectively passed with a probationary period.
Secondly, every law passed is another restriction on freedom. Having to review and evaluate effectiveness of laws coming up on the end of their sunset period means that Congress will have less time to create new laws, which is good for our freedoms.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3984
Local time: 2:37 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | That's not what actually happens though. |
Yeah, I know, I was agreeing with your proposed ammendment, and adding my own suggestion.
Come to think of it... I agree with every single word your said in you last post... who are you and what have you done to CET?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
