|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted July 30, 2002 01:45 PM |
|
|
uhhmm ok Nidhgrin
so what would you have done to stop hitler?
Asked him nicely?
War can be neccesarry, like I said when higher ideals can only be obtained when someone else is unwilling to go down diplomatic means.
By the way Why compare Hitler and OBL wake up call
THEY BOTH KILLED INNOCENT CIVILIANS DELIBERATELY!
The number is irrelevant! do you let a murderer go free simply because he only killed once?
and I read history. It is subjective and each person takes from it what they will. Just because he does not agree with you does not make him mentally younger than you.
So few terrorists? Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland who have lived with terror for 30 years. People who want to better their lives can do it in many ways! If that was justification why is it that the entire population of say palestine has not risen? Because maybe some of them have morals and don't beleive in harming someone who is innocent. Terrorists are pure killers whose political motives are often to say the least spurious.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted July 30, 2002 02:29 PM |
|
|
Thanks, privatehudson. You have some points there.
I am perhaps naive in believing that everything can be solved in a peaceful way, many humans still have aggression as their first reaction.
Quote:
uhhmm ok Nidhgrin
so what would you have done to stop hitler?
Asked him nicely?
Eh, Hitlers regime was a dictatorship. I think dictatorships should not exist at all, anywhere in the world. This is not a big praise to democracy, democracy has flaws too. But dictatorships should not be allowed to evolve, the people in a country shouldn't allow it. That's the reason why the steady progress of extreme-right in western european countries and us scares the hell out of me. Naive of me again perhaps, but I hope that organizations like the un gain more power to make sure that countries stop having dictators, reduce their army sizes, and that wealth is spread more evenly accross the world.
Quote:
War can be neccesarry, like I said when higher ideals can only be obtained when someone else is unwilling to go down diplomatic means.
When the power of country authorities would be reduced greatly so that freak leaders wouldn't start wars and neclect suffering countries or the ecosystem, there wouldn't be need for war. Utopia for now, I know, but I pray that it comes to that one day.
Quote:
By the way Why compare Hitler and OBL wake up call
THEY BOTH KILLED INNOCENT CIVILIANS DELIBERATELY!
The number is irrelevant! do you let a murderer go free simply because he only killed once?
Actually numbers do matter, as does the way victims are made. OBL crashed a plane on the WTC, thousands die. A tragidy indeed. US bombards Afghanistan to hell, thousands die. Another tragidy. These are acts of war if you like. Millions fell on the combat field during WW2, on either side. This is comparable to OBL still, true. Millions of jews, homosexuals, bohemian people, ... found their death in labour/concentration camps/gas chambers. Over those four years, these people were tracked down, put on a train and eradicated. Now how do you compare that with what OBL did? I don't have a clue.
Quote:
and I read history. It is subjective and each person takes from it what they will. Just because he does not agree with you does not make him mentally younger than you.
I fully agree. I got dragged away, there was no need to go insulting people. I removed the line, but I regret I wrote it in the first place.
Quote:
So few terrorists? Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland who have lived with terror for 30 years. People who want to better their lives can do it in many ways! If that was justification why is it that the entire population of say palestine has not risen? Because maybe some of them have morals and don't beleive in harming someone who is innocent. Terrorists are pure killers whose political motives are often to say the least spurious.
What about the catholic people in the northern part of ireland? I think you forgot about them. That's another situation that is not at all black or white. So called terrorists often kill people, what is unforgivable. The reactions of 'terrorized' countries/regions are mostly of a military kind. Soldiers are also pure killers who shoot at command, never thinking twice. Entering villages with tanks and killing innocent people which they believe are the enemy. How sick is that?! Actually believing that killing someone is justified? Killing never is.
____________
~Vegetables don't spam~
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 30, 2002 03:28 PM |
|
|
Why I like Tacos.
It's amazing, when you think about it, how such a simple dish can provide such joy along with the valuable nourishment contained within. It's a corn tortilla, folded over and baked or fried to crispiness. Everybody likes crispiness and crunch. Then you take what will be the base of your taco - refried beans or ground beef (other variations include grilled chicken, fish, and I have even been witness to shrimp tacos - I myself stick with the bean tacos since they're the cheapest). The base to your taco gives your taco its authority - its "oomph," so it is very important that you choose your taco base to go with your mood and personality. Then comes the fun part! On top of the base, you can put any number of delightful extras - shredded cheese, lettuce, tomato, salsa, guacomole, sour cream, anything your heart desires! No two tacos need be the same (but if you hit upon a winning formula, why you can have the same taco over and over and over again. erm, that is to say similar tacos, not literally the same taco since that's kind of disgusting). The extras, or "toppings" if you will give your taco it's zest and pizazz. What's that? You ask me why you should not make a taco entirely out of toppings and forgo the base entirely? Well, I ask you - would you make a pizza by melting cheese in a bucket and throwing pepperoni in? Of course not! Just as you need sauce and dough to offset your pizza topping, beans or beef are required in your taco to highlight the subtle flavors of topping. And when your taco has been constructed, you bite into it - first, the satisfying crunch as your incisors tear through the crisp tortilla shell - if that were all it was to the meal, you'd be happy, and yet there is even more! Suddenly the texture changes, whether to the smooth creaminess of the refried beans or to the meaty goodness of your ground beef. Your taste buds are in extasy! How could life be so good? But wait! There's more! That first tang of cheese hits you and you go weak in the knees, then the cheese is rapidly complemented by fresh lettuce, its cells bursting with turgor pressure in a delight of salady pleasure! You experience still more flavors in rapid succesion, each highlighting the last. Oh, life is good. Then, with dissapointment, you realize that you have completed the bite and the taco joy that was just stimulating your taste buds is now on its way towards the completion of the digestive process.
You begin to cry. How can you ever regain paradise lost? What will you ever do? Then... a revelation! There in your hand is the rest of your taco! Depending upon the size of your bites and taco, you could have anywhere up to 20 bites remaining of your taco! What's more, you could always prepare another one. Your tears of sorrow turn to tears of joy as you continue to masticate your taco. Hooray!
PS I am aware of the so called "soft taco" it's a burrito that nobody could bother closing.
This post brought to you by the Bort subject changing team
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 30, 2002 03:48 PM |
|
|
how did I "forget" about the catholics? I said the people of Northern Ireland, not the Protestants, just because I may be British does not assume I am pro protestant! In fact I am neither as I hate both terrorist scum from Catholic and Protestant sides.
Killing someone can be justified - what if he is trying to kill you! Murder is not justifed, but most killing done by soilders is self defence, whether direct or indirect!
War is where you declare it on someone. Anyone living in WWII in Britain knows they could die at any time from german bombs (and likewise in germany from British bombs). They come to accept that fact because they want to win the war and remove a dictator, OBL did not declare war, there was no warning. He systematically planned that attack, perhaps for many years and was cold hearted in it. AGAIN I repeat if you have a gripe with someone's country fight the country and regime, not the people!
So do we all want that type of utopia, but human nature, being varied and often warped means war will almost always happen. Don't misunderstand me I hate wars and wish they didn't happen, but at the end of the day sometimes you need them to remove these people. The problem is that countries will always defy others when they tell them what to do. Case in point the USA over the war crimes UN court. Sure dictators should be stopped, but having reached 1939, with all means used up to stop Hitler I think we Brits and French were right to say OI STOP IT NOW! We can all say that it should be stopped there and then, but when faced with a powerful dictator threatening world peace the onlyt answer is to remove him using whatever means is possible at the time.
Oh and Bort - Nice try but no
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2002 06:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It seems you have misinterpreted several things I said, Dargon. Evil is a word from fearytales and fantasy stories. Good and evil, black and white, no, they don't exist in real life. Like I said before different people have different morals. That implies that some people may have morals or ideas that are inhuman, horrifying and unimaginably cruel or foul.
-------------------------------------------
eh? this is the main bit i want to discuss, im kind of confused about what your saying here your basically judging there morals for them, and since you dont like them are coming up with words very similar to saying evil. It kind of destroys your point of everything not being black and white. If everything is not black and white then there can be no such thing as totally inhuman or unimaginably cruel
-------------------------------------------------------
As Romana mentioned, some people are ill, very ill in the head. They have sick thoughts and should probably be locked away in an asylum for treatment. If those insane people happen to be leaders, catastrophies happen. I wouldn't call it evil, only ill, really ill.
---------------------------------------------------------
Saying all mass murderers are all just really ill people, i just dont agree with at all (thats what i see this bit as saying)
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Snogard
It was justified in my opinion because of the reasons I gave earlier, ie the number of allied soilders and citizens/soilders of Japan that would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Others have also stated that they can understand the reasoning behind dropping the bomb. You said that a terrorist kills innocents intentionally. I would add something to that he is someone who kills intentionally and without first making sure that his actions will save lives. In my opinion the bomb was dropped paradoxically to save lives.
I suppose CAT and Nidhgrin have brought up most of the points that I would like to, so I'll just try to clarify the above. You said "It was justified in my opinion", and that is precisely what I was trying to say. To some, it may be justifiable and reasonable to kill that many people, but not to others. Perhaps we should not (if at all) just so causually pass any judgement on such a great tragic.
You mentioned, "You said that a terrorist kills innocents intentionally", but I'm afraid you've gotten me wrong. What I was trying to say is "intentionally killing innocents" is a very vague expression. Sometimes, it is very difficult to define what's the real (main?) intention... We can interprete the intentions of people, but we cannot be sure.
Bort:
 Wow, very deep. I'm not sure if I understood all of what you've said, but I'll give it a shot. You were saying that there are various kinds of Tacos, but yet Tacos is still Tacos. And the amount of Tacos and the amount of time you can have to eat the Tacos are all in your mind... Let me see, may I translate it to: there is no black and white, but yet black is black and white is white; and black, white or whatever colours only exist in our mind... 
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 07:22 AM |
|
|
Snogard
I find discussion about paradigms very interesting, but it basically boils down to a philosophy of relativism. I personally am an ethical deontologist so while I think we need to be aware of paradigms and our own historical blinders I reject that there are no absolutes. I did enjoy your statement “life is absolutely relative and relatively absolute” though I don’t subscribe to that philosophical world view.
2XtremeToTake
If anyone doesn’t take the topics that we are discussing in here (murder, terrorism, morality, etc) seriously than I think they might want to return to their Mickey Mouse coloring book.
Nidhgrin
I find it interesting that people are so afraid to use the word evil. Instead they come up with all sorts of other apparently less offensive terms (inhuman, horrifying and unimaginably cruel or foul) that basically describe the same thing. Evil is real and present. When I want to hurt someone maliciously…that is evil…when someone rapes someone else that is evil. As a psychotherapist and one who has worked in locked psychiatric facilities/asylums I have met many “ill” people and there is a vast difference between being ill and evil.
I have no doubt that terrorists are desperate people…but desperation does not condone their actions. While serial killers may evoke feelings of being terrorized I think generally the term is used to describe individual people or groups who have a particular political perspective that they are trying to “fight” for and in doing so they kill people with little regard for their life.
I really don’t see any big difference between Hitler and OBL…at what point does someone become wrong/evil/wicked/inhuman? Granted Hitler murdered millions and OBL murdered thousands…but is there a particular number…if OBL killed 5000 then would he be comparable to Hitler? What about 7500?
Violence is amoral….it all depends on the situation. As you yourself go on to say defending your family is one of the morally permitted avenues to engage in violence.
BTW I hate to keep pointing it out….but I feel compelled as most moral relativist don’t even realize they are doing it but when you stated “Violence in any form is disgusting and should not exist” and “War can never be justified”…well they both are another absolute belief/statement of yours.
War has many times been misused….but it certainly has its moral justification. AS private hudson stated…what would you have done with Hitler asked him politely to stop? Again I am perplexed when you state “should not be allowed to evolve” yet you are against war and violence…how exactly would one stop them? Write love letters? A nice poem perhaps? Maybe we could send them flowers and they would stop being big mean guys.
As far as books…please don’t make the mistake that since someone doesn’t agree with you they are unread….my personal library is quite huge. Education…well I am far more formally educated than 90% of the general population. Age…well unfortunately I am older than most in TOH As far as looking at things from others perspective…again thanks for the box you are trying to paint but again TOTALLY incorrect. I have lived most of my life professionally understanding others point of view not to mention that higher education constantly dispenses a multitude of perspectives. I don’t know you so I can’t assume you are unlearned but your characterization of me was quite inept.
Personally its not individual nations that truly scare me but the UN scares the hell out of me
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 07:27 AM |
|
|
Cat
Are you slapping yourself silly with that GOON thing or what? LOL.
Well I guess we just see the world very differently if you think the current US leadership is not aware of history….the current team that Bush put together in the White House- Powell, Rice, Cheney are some of the most educated, well respected and informed people around. Apparently you and I seem to draw some very different lessons from history so either one of us or both of us is going to be doomed to repeat it.
As far as polices stopping terrorism…well guess what NO policy will ever stop terrorism or evil in general. Much the same as the welfare state in USA and other countries consistently fails to stop abuse, poverty, disease, starvation, etc in the world and domestically…but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current policies are wrong. As far as I can see there will always be hunger, violence, etc..all we can do with our policies is attempt to assist in their decrease… we will never solve the problem completely. How long have we been trying to help those who are less fortunate…since time began and yet we look around the world and we still have the same problems that people were attempting to alleviate thousands of years ago.
So since we haven’t developed perfect policies regarding any of these issues…should we just stop? I think not.
As far as your statement “not defining evil myself”..well what I stated to Nidhgrin I think applies to you…call it what you want… wrong, unjust, abhorrent, ill, whatever….just semantics in my opinion. You oppose unjust people most likely just as strongly as I oppose evil people so we are most likely just using different words.
Well as far as pacifist tag…if say that you aren’t a pacifist than I will cease labeling you as such. You appear to be what we call in the US a liberal and I am a conservative, but those are just labels that never completely define what an individual is. So in the end I guess we might both agree and celebrate that we have freedom of speech and ideas…no matter how incorrect yours are…lol
Bort
thanks for the comic relief If you were making a serious point than I missed it..haha. I don’t think I have met someone who can describe a taco quite the way you can.
Arachnid
You stated “im kind of confused about what your saying here your basically judging there morals for them, and since you dont like them are coming up with words very similar to saying evil. It kind of destroys your point of everything not being black and white. If everything is not black and white then there can be no such thing as totally inhuman or unimaginably cruel” I couldn’t agree more
I think moral relativism has things that can educate us all, but as a comprehensive theory I think it falls short (I think Bort and I have had some lenghty debates about this in the past). Most relativists here continually make absolute statements…the very reason moral relativism is typically illogical….it states in simple terms that everything is relative to your culture, mindset, mood, etc. Well that is an absolute statement and there really is no way of getting around it accept to make very carefully worded opinions that don’t ascribe to any general or absolute truth. Thus all statements of a moral relativist by definition must lack the fortitude to back their premise. I think a true adherent of moral relativism would not engage in any form of debate because they understand that their statements have no authority other than to state their solely individulized perspective.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 03:47 PM |
|
|
Snogard You can be sure sometimes of their intention. no-one can honestly be trying to minimise civilian lives if they crash a passenger laden jumbo into a densley populated buidling twice! (and one at pentagon) someone trying to avoid casualties would surely go for cargo planes.
Oh and dArGOn i Agree with so much of what you are saying i'm starting to think someone cloned us at birth!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 07:30 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 31 Jul 2002
|
Snodgard - with regards to why we "should" pass judgement on the Hiroshima tragedy, I think it's in terms of the international court and war crime tribunals (which, yes, I do feel that the US should be part of, so don't go back to that dead horse, please). I think there needs to be some decisions and precedents about what constitutes a war crime/atrocity and what constitutes justified and "proper and what can be classified as an "error" so that we know who would need to be put on trial in the future. Speaking personally, I would definitely not put anybody on trial for the Hiroshima bomb, but I feel that a trial for the Nagasaki bomb would have been appropriate (although I don't NECESARRILY think that it would automatically be a guilty verdict - just as the world has the right to prove their guilt, the accused parties would have the right to defend themselves. Who knows, maybe there was more to the decision than what we all know/ think we know about it.)
Dargon - just a comment on one of your small points - I wonder why we haven't heard from Powell lately? He's basically the only member of Bush's cabinet other than Rumsfield who I actually agree with sometimes. I wonder if he's been pushed to the side because he's not agreeing with all of the BushCheney policies...
I'm going to stay out of the defining evil argument. It can't be settled. Can we all agree that Osama Bin Laden is "bad" though?
I'm going to try a somewhat disingenious analogy to justify some, if not all of the actions of the US in response to the 9/11 attacks. I'm aware that it's not a perfect analogy, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway.
The scene is the world cup. The US (team picked at random) is playing Afghanistan (team also picked at random) 15 minutes into the game, a Saudi fan (nationality picked at random), who has chosen to sit in the Afghan fan section and is being protected by big, burly fundamentalist Afghan fans whips out an AK-47 and opens fire on the US fan section. Security responds by shooting him and his guards and in doing so, kill Afghan fans as well. When it comes right down to it, who is responsible for the deaths of the Afghan fans?
Edit : Erm... change "shooting him" to "allowing him to escape to potentially the Pakistani fan section" but you get the idea.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 07:48 PM |
|
|
To Arachnid..I wasn't using the nutcase thingie as an excuse for the things those people did..I just find it very hard to define good or evil..Don't get me wrong.
Evil or good is what you make of it.
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Gangrail
Promising
Famous Hero
Dead Man
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 09:34 PM |
|
|
Ok time to piss people off lol
I am sick of this usa sadam snow. Bomb the snower and get it over with. Should have done that in Desert Storm. He is a useless piece of snow and anyone that supports his actions is just as bad. The only mistake the USA made is they didn't kill the little prick the 1st time. If they do it again make sure you get his ass. So I have no pitty for his people that follow him and think he is all powerful. Try your snow with America and get snow slapped back to the stoneage again Sadam.
____________
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted July 31, 2002 10:32 PM |
|
|
Take a good look at my signature hun
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 12:35 AM |
|
|
DaRgON:- *blushes* sorry, It wasn't pointed out to me today that it wasn't Dargoon... oops.
It is all very well to say that the policies of the government are for the greater good, but I think th policies stem from self-centred interests and not an attempt for the greater good.
The policies of the Bush administration bow to the voters which they realise they most need to keep, rather than the sensiblilites they should be examining. It should not be impossible to do things for the purposes off ethics and the greater "good" rather than the stisfaction of a small community of the middle class.
The trade of arms to Israel, for instance, is a cowardly and dispicable policy. Blair also seems to think this is a good idea, but then he seems to be Bush's "Monica", so that doesn't surprise me. I also dislike the amount of covert work which still goes on. and the lack of evidence involved at all.
(really sorry about getting the name wrong, again)
I will add to this later, I am so sleepy..
____________
 Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Nebuka
Promising
Supreme Hero
Save me Jebus!
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 12:41 AM |
|
Edited By: Nebuka on 31 Jul 2002
|
Quote:
I am sick of this usa sadam snow. Bomb the snower and get it over with. Should have done that in Desert Storm. He is a useless piece of snow and anyone that supports his actions is just as bad. The only mistake the USA made is they didn't kill the little prick the 1st time. If they do it again make sure you get his ass. So I have no pitty for his people that follow him and think he is all powerful. Try your snow with America and get snow slapped back to the stoneage again Sadam.
Lol! You must be more educated than 95% of population...Bomb? You mean 'normal' bombing or good old nuke?
____________
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 01:05 AM |
|
|
Seems like the US will never get this guy, even if they choose to use nukes or anything else. It doesn't matter where he is hiding, to find one guy in a such a huge country is impossible.
____________
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 01, 2002 01:23 AM |
|
|
I'm sure it is impossible to destroy terrorism. It isn't some sort of army that can be destroyed with bombs/guns/missiles/any other weapon. You kill 1 terrorist and everywhere around the world 10 more terrorists swear to revenge. The more you try to kill/arrest/punish terrorist movement, the more it grows. But what's even worse, it can't be stopped with diplomatic treaties and agreements. All these Israel-Palestine meetings will result in nothing but the development of terroristic organizations. Two religions are fighting each other and no one will stop until the other one is totally destroyed. Only time will perhaps do something with this conflict, but if we continue to shoot at each other... well there are around 6 billion people currently living on the Earth and this war will last for many centuries. I'm not a pacifist, but maybe it's time to put down OUR guns if those terrorists still don't want to switch off their bombs?..
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 02:38 AM |
|
|
Gangrail
Do you think that all of the people in Iraq support Sadam? What of those who don't? Is it right to bomb them back into the stone age?
Many Iraqui's were quite prepared to overthrow Sadam in the Gulf War, but after liberating Kuwait the allies abbandonned them to their fate which you can be sure was not pleasant.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 04:15 AM |
|
|
|
Well, I guess this thread just goes to show that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Unless they disagree with me. Then they are obviously and completely wrong.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted August 01, 2002 05:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Snogard You can be sure sometimes of their intention. no-one can honestly be trying to minimise civilian lives if they crash a passenger laden jumbo into a densley populated buidling twice! (and one at pentagon) someone trying to avoid casualties would surely go for cargo planes.
I set a fire to a house opposite a bank to cause chaos, so that I could seize the opportunity to rob the bank and use the money to aid the poor. Now, is my intention(s): a) to set fire to the house, b) to cause chaos, c) to rob the bank, d) to aid the poor, e) just to release my own spiritual(?)/psychological(?) tension, f) all of the above, g) none of the above? I think this is a difficult question...
In a way of looking at it, killing the civilians is definately one of their intentions. But is that their "main" intention? I cannot tell. If no, would they ... ... save lives instead for example, if that would enable them to achieve their "main" objective?
Quote:
Snodgard - with regards to why we "should" pass judgement on the Hiroshima tragedy... ...maybe there was more to the decision than what we all know/ think we know about it.)
I completely agree with what you've said and I do know the reasons behind the "necessity" of judgement. I just felt that we need to be constantly reminded of ... ... what "the international court" or/and "the world" is defined by. btw, I like your football analogy and your Tacos (if it matters at all).
Quote:
Arachnid
You stated “im kind of confused about ... ... I think a true adherent of moral relativism would not engage in any form of debate because they understand that their statements have no authority other than to state their solely individulized perspective.
"Absolute" and "relative" have to co-exist; without one, we cannot possibly understand the other... "logically". I suppose that's how logic works - by comparing "absolutes". You mentioned, "most relativists here continually make absolute statements", that is only partly true. Each statement is absolute, but all the statements are relative to each other. You said relativists "have no authority other than to state their solely individulized perspective", well I'll say not only the relativists, but all of us (in a sense). The moment we "accepted" a certain perspective, it's individualized. The so call authority only extend so far as our "believes". I know I couldn't really explain it properly, but perhaps like you've said, whenever it is put into words, it becomes "illogical". "Illogical" yes, but is logic = "truth"?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
