Now we’re getting into territory for vigorous debate and arming ourselves toward moral outrage.
At what point are we subjecting our own flesh to the insanity of bit banging from conception until death?
Is this enslavement?
Do we care?
Lack of modern coherence demands a group search for Objective Morality. A line we will not let crossed: the sacrificing of those “innocent” for “power”. Anyone (now a person? Or do we call those “subjectives?”) who cannot say “no”, cannot “walk away or stand their ground”, and does not have an exclusive right to their own persons (embodiment) are having their “human” rights violated.
> Did you think it got out of hand? I thought it ended on a nice note.
It did indeed end on a nice note, but I think "got out of hand" is looking at the wrong end of the thread.
I didn't flag that comment, I seldom flag any, but I would guess the problem was likely the start of that other thread, because your opening there was more than a little abrasive.
Maybe you’re right about communicating. Those in the right aren’t the most vindicated by time.
The churn of civilization is by every generation standing for what comes to pass. However much failure there is in that, civilization will always be the measure of how far we crawl out before failing ourselves once more.
This “righteous rule”, merely a tool that there is a truth before measure by which men’s lives may be accounted must exist even if as some crude decentralized code of principle. We shall call this law and it will be right only by measure of our competence in exercising it as such.
The principled approach may be crude yet effective where maintained.
We don't stop ourselves from exploiting and enslaving entire human beings for the sake of power, what makes you think we'd make an exception for brains in a jar?
There are those in this world who will actually literally (not jackass joke about fair trade injustice) sacrifice an “innocent” for power (their own or any other), there are those who will do no such thing, and there are those who would murder a man before letting such things stand.
I advocate a righteous rule of law. I advocate moral and lawful violence as a resolution to the lawless violation of those not culpable for anything so fuck all.
> I advocate a righteous rule of law. I advocate moral and lawful violence as a resolution to the lawless violation of those not culpable for anything so fuck all.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Millions throughout history have spoken as you do now. Both Kirk and his alledged assassin. Militant vegans (some more metaphorical than others) to abortion clinic bombers. Crusades and conquistadors and those attacked by each.
That’s the problem with communication, you for instance cannot be listening if you think what I say is what these people say.
I said truth and law, not by someone’s god.
In fact, I like to make it clear thoughts feelings and beliefs are never worth violating the sanctity of others.
Truth and law however are the right to resolve violation, and violation is an instrument of resolution (of those who enable and perpetuate, to put to an end at every expense of those culpable.)
Let me just outline what I call “a righteous rule of law” in so few worlds:
One principled upon Truth, for if it is not true it has no place in law.
One which protects the innocent (those not culpable) from violation by will or neglect.
One entitled by domain, one competent and uncorrupted before law.
And really that’s it, though we must spend volumes of text uncompressing this before being understood in a useful common frame of reference.
Now we’re getting into territory for vigorous debate and arming ourselves toward moral outrage.
At what point are we subjecting our own flesh to the insanity of bit banging from conception until death?
Is this enslavement?
Do we care?
Lack of modern coherence demands a group search for Objective Morality. A line we will not let crossed: the sacrificing of those “innocent” for “power”. Anyone (now a person? Or do we call those “subjectives?”) who cannot say “no”, cannot “walk away or stand their ground”, and does not have an exclusive right to their own persons (embodiment) are having their “human” rights violated.
Or something like that.
Moral outrage, sure.
Lack of coherence has never been relevant to that.
> A line we will not let crossed: the sacrificing of those “innocent” for “power”.
I have bad news, you may wish to sit down and have some smelling salts to hand before reading world history.
I don’t know why all that was flagged, I was exhibiting moral outrage regarding the sanctity of there being some kind of sanctity.
Did you think it got out of hand? I thought it ended on a nice note.
> Did you think it got out of hand? I thought it ended on a nice note.
It did indeed end on a nice note, but I think "got out of hand" is looking at the wrong end of the thread.
I didn't flag that comment, I seldom flag any, but I would guess the problem was likely the start of that other thread, because your opening there was more than a little abrasive.
[flagged]
That would be an illustration of my own point about moral outrage and coherency. I hope that wasn't accidental.
If it was, have you heard the bad news about how slavery was legal for ages? Or even conscription?
And I was just saying, without mitigating savage powers there will be no civilizing accord.
There shall be righteous rules of law among powers over Man
However many times Man must be torn down and rebuilt to this purpose.
That it is easier to be a sell out or buy in is not the last word on human resolve.
The "righteous" are often the least coherent. They think they don't need to explain themselves so much.
Maybe you’re right about communicating. Those in the right aren’t the most vindicated by time.
The churn of civilization is by every generation standing for what comes to pass. However much failure there is in that, civilization will always be the measure of how far we crawl out before failing ourselves once more.
This “righteous rule”, merely a tool that there is a truth before measure by which men’s lives may be accounted must exist even if as some crude decentralized code of principle. We shall call this law and it will be right only by measure of our competence in exercising it as such.
The principled approach may be crude yet effective where maintained.
We don't stop ourselves from exploiting and enslaving entire human beings for the sake of power, what makes you think we'd make an exception for brains in a jar?
It’s all very much simpler to this.
There are those in this world who will actually literally (not jackass joke about fair trade injustice) sacrifice an “innocent” for power (their own or any other), there are those who will do no such thing, and there are those who would murder a man before letting such things stand.
I advocate a righteous rule of law. I advocate moral and lawful violence as a resolution to the lawless violation of those not culpable for anything so fuck all.
I don’t care what others get away with.
> I advocate a righteous rule of law. I advocate moral and lawful violence as a resolution to the lawless violation of those not culpable for anything so fuck all.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Millions throughout history have spoken as you do now. Both Kirk and his alledged assassin. Militant vegans (some more metaphorical than others) to abortion clinic bombers. Crusades and conquistadors and those attacked by each.
That’s the problem with communication, you for instance cannot be listening if you think what I say is what these people say.
I said truth and law, not by someone’s god.
In fact, I like to make it clear thoughts feelings and beliefs are never worth violating the sanctity of others.
Truth and law however are the right to resolve violation, and violation is an instrument of resolution (of those who enable and perpetuate, to put to an end at every expense of those culpable.)
Let me just outline what I call “a righteous rule of law” in so few worlds:
One principled upon Truth, for if it is not true it has no place in law.
One which protects the innocent (those not culpable) from violation by will or neglect.
One entitled by domain, one competent and uncorrupted before law.
And really that’s it, though we must spend volumes of text uncompressing this before being understood in a useful common frame of reference.
Has Hollywood taught you idiots nothing???