If I can't baffle you anymore young Luke than my deed is truly done.

*strangled metalic breathing*

Interesting. You've just agreed with all of the points I have raised except for an understanding of 'words hurt people' type objections.

There's no type of world I can imagine where you can escape the possibility for having your 'feelings hurt'. If someone gives you the middle finger while you walk across the street....or if you are called an 'idiot'.....or your girlfriend dumps you there is and should not be any legal protection against these 'harmful words'.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to toughen up and cope.

The part of me toughening up was not my point. My point was and is that you are a fraud. You use words meaningfully to hurt people so that they will shut up and bend to your will. And as soon as someone does not agree with you, you start badgering them with words like 'idiot' so that they will shut up and go home so to speak.
But this time it did not work.

The reason for us agreeing is because you are diverting from your ideology and or do not see that it contains logical errors.

One last question. Have you actually read Rand? I have, and I can't really see her agreeing with you. Perhap's you went wrong and read the Rand Corporation manual instead?

Carl

Nothing. NOTHING I have said is in any way particular to my philosophy but to many other traditions. It's just simple school age level reasoning. What about 'Do not initiate force against your fellow man' do you not understand? You spend god knows how many hour typing paragraphs about nothingness. Oh...and for the record, if she were alive today I'm certain she'd agree with everything I've said to you.

You seem fixated on the supposed 'violence' done to you by one person that called you an 'idiot' over the internet once and continue to type about it.

What so called logical errors are these you speak of? Nothing you can possibly say can baffle my imagination more. I can't wait.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Good think I'm on in "that team". J/K of course. I fail to see the relation, but oh well, maybe I'm just blind. Or, maybe I just don't care. :-)

---

Sorry, I guess that my jokes are also baaaaad.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

I just took a closer look at your team cRunchy. It actually almost made me tempted to join a team.
One big heap of bearded crazy men and beautiful women who are all totaly insane. That is the closest I've been to seeing heaven so far!

*Switching to Jamaican* Cool Man!

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Sorry, I guess that my jokes are also baaaaad.

Yes :) but we like it.

It's sleep time for me...

Wondered what happened to the thread 'scallops, monkeys and hugh ones'..

Another day...

---

Sorry, I guess that my jokes are also baaaaad.

Yes :) but we like it.

It's sleep time for me...

Wondered what happened to the thread 'scallops, monkeys and hugh ones'..

Another day...

Sleep time in England???

Well I guess it is one mint-sauce to many...

Bad jokes is making life worth living. See you around!

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

I just took a closer look at your team cRunchy. It actually almost made me tempted to join a team.
One big heap of bearded crazy men and beautiful women who are all totaly insane. That is the closest I've been to seeing heaven so far!

*Switching to Jamaican* Cool Man!

Ohhhh... Ohh....... I just had to come back for this one.. I even stopped putting my slippers on...

Bearded men and beautiful women???

I am sure you meant to say beautiful men (like me in a manly but not man to man way of course) and our rather voluptuos bearded women (like our women in a non beard to beard sort of way of course)...

I never promote flamboyant team choosing or switching... but you have been around so you can choose what madness you could get into yourself.. (erm get yourself into...)

Sleep time in England???

I never mentioned GMT.. I like to Siesta and it's a public bonk holiday..
eyelids are heav..y.

---

I should have known it was due to the bonking holiday that you were sleepy.
Yepp, I stand corrected, I meant the beautiful men and the shaggy ladies.
I just said it was close to heaven, but I am not sure I fit into heaven. I am a bit snaky you know:-)

I just took a closer look at your team cRunchy. It actually almost made me tempted to join a team.
One big heap of bearded crazy men and beautiful women who are all totaly insane. That is the closest I've been to seeing heaven so far!

*Switching to Jamaican* Cool Man!

Ohhhh... Ohh....... I just had to come back for this one.. I even stopped putting my slippers on...

Bearded men and beautiful women???

I am sure you meant to say beautiful men (like me in a manly but not man to man way of course) and our rather voluptuos bearded women (like our women in a non beard to beard sort of way of course)...

I never promote flamboyant team choosing or swithing... but you have been around so you can choose what madness you could get into yourself.. (erm get yourself into...)

Sleep time in England???

I never mentioned GMT.. I like to Siesta and it's a public bonk holiday..
eyelids are heav..y.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

.... I just said it was close to heaven, but I am not sure I fit into heaven.....

With a quote like that even the saints would love you....

If I don't go to sleep soon I might start typing some sense..

Nacht....

---

.... I just said it was close to heaven, but I am not sure I fit into heaven.....

With a quote like that even the saints would love you....

If I don't go to sleep soon I might start typing some sense..

Nacht....

And may the sleepy puffs be with you!

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

they are to christian right-wing [snip]. That is why they think you are trying to euthanase people. For them god created them to obey his will and have money in the wallett and babes in the bank while they are naked around hemp-growers.

By their standards, the Apostle Paul sure did get a shady deal... No money, no babes, no nothing... ;)

I Timothy 6:6-8
There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

He wasn't speaking about genetic predispositions to prostate or breast cancer. Let's speak honestly. He said what he meant to say. He meant somehow moral causes of diseases and ailments. Reminds me of the christian flaggelant movements.

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

I'm sorry, Robert, but I didn't read Thorin's comment like that.

I can partly agree with him, that some people are more predisposed to get illnesses, and certain cancer forms are hereditary, like a certain form of breast cancer, where women, who have relatives, mothers and sisters, who had breast cancer, have chosen to have preventive mastectomies done as the probability of themselves getting it is very high.

It's a common perception mostly in the New Age circles that we cause our illnesses ourselves through negative ways of thinking, and that you also can cure yourself through positive thinking.

But this is actually a problem for people who suffer from some very aggressive lethal illnesses, such as certain forms of cancer, and it can create a lot of guilt feelings in the patients, that they themselves are responsible for their condition, that they themselves have brought them into their situation. And some of them are taking measures in trying to heal themselves through alternative healing, some very painful and always extremely expensive. So, besides fighting a serious illness, they also have to fight those feelings of being alone, of having caused their own situation. And that is inhuman in my opinion.

Interesting what people can read in my posts ...
Robert I did not mean that diseases have moral causes. Some are triggered by poisons coming into our bodies, that's true. But it does NOT mean that there is ANY moral cause for ANY disease! Remember, I stated somewhere (wasn't it even in this thread?) that twenty years ago my own younger brother died painfully on cancer, 15 of age! Was this his own fault? Never! He just had the bad luck to get that piece of genetic heritage from his great-grandfather who also died on a similar cancer. Please do not even assume I would mean such a fate had moral causes! I know that psychic problems can make you physically sick, too, or make healing slower. But also these conditions have nothing to do with moral. (Except handling moral makes you sick - attempted joke)

they are to christian right-wing [snip]. That is why they think you are trying to euthanase people. For them god created them to obey his will and have money in the wallett and babes in the bank while they are naked around hemp-growers.

By their standards, the Apostle Paul sure did get a shady deal... No money, no babes, no nothing... ;)

I Timothy 6:6-8
There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

:-D wonderful.

---

Account frozen...

You cannot have it both ways. You just said that all libertarians want to stop both corporate and other wellfare. You have to decide on one of them.

Forgive me if I was unclear. They want to stop welfare, of all sorts, from the gov't. What individual corporations or people choose to do on their own is entirely up to them. Their choice. Or not.

The Futurist Manifesto was written by Marinetti. I think you should read it. It says the same things you do just a lot better.

Thank you for the recommendation.

That's why I said that this philosophy is egocentric. Rather you watch humans starve than let the gov't give them enough to eat, and a possibility later to earn their meal. Rather watch homeless people die in winter than let the community give them a warm place to sleep if not an entire home.
No-one chooses to starve. Almost no-one chooses to be poor, to be homeless, to be unemployed. The system made the very most of them become this. So the system is guilty to have caused their situation, the system has to - at least - easen their burden. It's as simple as that. Welfare is just humanity.

---

Account frozen...

Science, money, humans...

I like all of the above.

---

Join Calm Chaos

That's why I said that this philosophy is egocentric. Rather you watch humans starve than let the gov't give them enough to eat, and a possibility later to earn their meal.

This is exactly what you do, as we speak. Right this very minute, you are watching humans starve and the gov't is not giving them enough to eat. But be that as it may, you still avoid the central principle: where does the gov't get the resources to give them food or shelter?

Rather watch homeless people die in winter than let the community give them a warm place to sleep if not an entire home.

The community can do as it wishes, just as you can. Nothing is stopping you. But, like I said, you, and those that think like you, won't put enough time, effort, and money into it to accomplish your goals on your own. Since you can't be bothered, you need to force me to do help you out, because I won't adhere to your program voluntarily. Ever. Never have, never will.

No-one chooses to starve. Almost no-one chooses to be poor, to be homeless, to be unemployed. The system made the very most of them become this.

The "system" does this? That's just silly. Why didn't the system do it to you? Or me? Or Barbra Streisand? Why didn't it do that to Oprah or Michael Moore? Why does the system refuse to destroy the overwhelming majority of people?

So the system is guilty to have caused their situation, the system has to - at least - easen their burden. It's as simple as that. Welfare is just humanity.

Well then, nuclear weapons are just humanity. The WHISC is just humanity. The system provides that as well. Because just as you want to provide welfare, others want to provide War in Iraq.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So the system is guilty to have caused their situation, the system has to - at least - easen their burden. It's as simple as that. Welfare is just humanity.

Well then, nuclear weapons are just humanity. The WHISC is just humanity. The system provides that as well. Because just as you want to provide welfare, others want to provide War in Iraq.

Killing humans is not humanity. War is not humanity. Fascism, torture, racism, terror, invasions are not humanity.
Humanity is caused by love. Love to each other human being. And a person I love I do care.
A government per se has to take care, to serve and to protect the people of it's country. So is it a service to people to let them remain homeless? To let them live an awful life in poverty? Without giving them a real chance to get out of their situation? Is it a protected life to be forced to sleep on park-benches or on the pavement instead of in a normal home? Is it taking care of people to allow that they sure get their wounds bandaged, but are sent home if they are real sick only because they are poor? Is it really a good thing of a gov't to watch inactively that people have to work on two, three, even four jobs, 60 to 80 hours a week just to be able to afford their basic needs? What is a gov't for when it doesn't serve it's people? For representation?
It's marvellous that there are people and organizations helping such people.
But I think it is the duty of the government to help them, instead of financing fascist institutions like the SOA, or to help erect inhuman gov'ts in other countries.

---

Account frozen...

Killing humans is not humanity. War is not humanity. Fascism, torture, racism, terror, invasions are not humanity.

No, they are not. But just as you beg the gov't to provide education or homes, other people beg the gov't to build weapons and the WHISC.

Humanity is caused by love. Love to each other human being. And a person I love I do care. A government per se has to take care, to serve and to protect the people of it's country. So is it a service to people to let them remain homeless? To let them live an awful life in poverty? Without giving them a real chance to get out of their situation? Is it a protected life to be forced to sleep on park-benches or on the pavement instead of in a normal home? Is it taking care of people to allow that they sure get their wounds bandaged, but are sent home if they are real sick only because they are poor? Is it really a good thing of a gov't to watch inactively that people have to work on two, three, even four jobs, 60 to 80 hours a week just to be able to afford their basic needs? What is a gov't for when it doesn't serve it's people? For representation?

So I'll ask you a third time: where does the gov't get the resources to give these people food or shelter? The gov't certainly doesn't create it.

It's marvellous that there are people and organizations helping such people. But I think it is the duty of the government to help them, instead of financing fascist institutions like the SOA, or to help erect inhuman gov'ts in other countries.

That nice. Other people think it is the duty of the gov't not to help them, instead financing institutions like the WHISC and building the USS Ronald Reagan. Since the principle is the same (forcing others to pay for things they would not freely choose), sometimes you get some education, sometimes you get War in Iraq.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What is a gov't for when it doesn't serve it's people?

Government does serve its people well... They just forget about the rest of us...

I really don't know why you bother with these guys... From a capitalists point of view they are right, from a moral point of view they are dead wrong... They will never see anything past the glowing dollar signs in their eyes...

It's a good vs evil thing... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

From a capitalists point of view they are right, from a moral point of view they are dead wrong...

Actually, both points of view are the same. It is morally wrong to initiate force against others to make them pay for your pet projects. Why? Because if that's OK for you to do, then it is OK for them to do. If simple force is the standard of right and wrong--whoever has the most force gets what they want--then morality is lost.

They will never see anything past the glowing dollar signs in their eyes...

I don't have dollar signs in my eyes. I simply won't play along with what you would use force to decide for me.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

If simple force is the standard of right and wrong--whoever has the most force gets what they want--then morality is lost.

Maybe you haven't noticed... Morality has already been lost, the bullies have won by force...

Congrats on your victory... In the end, there will be hell to pay... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .