Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2005 > OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-16, 3:55 am |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cg0vd.6726$ZP5.5891@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
would[color=darkred]
your[color=darkred]
done[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, it's not that I'm afraid - it's the time I end up feeling compelled
> to spend. It's not really fair of me to reply to others' posts with my
> opinions, but then not reply to their subsequent replies. :)
>
that[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
wrong).[color=darkred]
>
> Which you discuss below... as will I... ;)
>
blown[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
gone,[color=darkred]
murder.[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
isn't[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
certainly[color=darkred]
see[color=darkred]
made[color=darkred]
guys[color=darkred]
>
> I've never been shot at (thankfully), but I did have a gun pulled on me
> once. I've heard that the response is something as you've described
> above. One of our instructors at Airman Leadership School (the military
> eduction the USAF puts you through before you become an NCO) told us
> about the time he and his other Airmen had been running while they were
> deployed in Kuwait during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. People from
> off base started shooting at them through the fence of the base. He
> said that it's like time slowed down to about 1/10 the speed, and that
> they high-tailed it away from the fence behind some cover.
>
They made no attempt to return fire? (perhaps they were unarmed at the
time?)
My impulse was definitely to get the people doing it. (I couldn't because I
had no means to.)
> No one was shot during that incident, but he did have friends that died
> when the lone SCUD missile hit the barracks a few days later.
>
Modern weapons require such bravery, don't they? It isn't like the old days
when you had to look at the face of an enemy as you killed him, close up and
personal. The sanitization of war is partly responsible for the increase in
it. Any idiot can unthinkingly follow orders and push a button, destroying
dozens of people hundreds of miles away.
It was interesting to me that when we did our basic military training, we
were not required to do the famous bayonet drill (screaming and yelling as
you stab straw men to death). I asked why this was, and the response was
profound: "The NZ Army has decided that such drills are degrading to the
soldier and serve no useful purpose. If you are ever in a situation where
you need to use a bayonet, you will not require training. You will certainly
be trained in how to attach it quickly." Given that our forces seem to enjoy
a good reputation in military circles, the policy appears to have had no
deleterious effect.
<snip>
> I'm with you there. However, I'm a bit skeptical of this "recent DNA
> evidence" stuff that anti-death-penalty folks are harping on. I'm not
> familiar enough with the processes to know how easily it is tainted, and
> "many years later" is many years someone with an agenda would have to
> plant false evidence.
>
Not sure. I am uninformed on this.
<snip>
>
> In my opinion, whether it's a deterrent or not isn't an issue. It's a
> defined punishment for wrong actions. That's what most of the law is -
> if one coded it, it would look something like...
>
> if law-was-broken
> and guilt-proven
> perform mete-out-punishment
> end-if
>
Well, we diverge a bit there. I see no point in punishment per se. What does
it achieve? It won't fix what was done. I see punishment ONLY as leading to
change on the part of the perpetrator, and even then, only as a last resort.
I favour the death penalty for certain crimes (as explained previously) not
for punishment, but because there is no hope of the guilty people being
reclaimed by society. They have shown by their actions that they are not
fit to be in a civilised society and executing them is the simplest most
efficient solution. (I agree that it probably makes all concerned (except
the perp) feel better, too.)
When I manage projects I strive for a "blame free" culture. It is the same
principle. Someone goofed off; make sure they won't ever do so again, not by
punishment but by getting them to take the responsibility for the effect of
their actions. Then it becomes a learning process. It has to be "safe" to
get it wrong occasionally.
I'll amend your code as follows:
if law-was-broken
and guilt-proven
if NOT (terrorist or paedophile)
if NOT habitual-offender
if perp-accepts-responsibility AND shows-remorse
perform allow-perp-to-make-things-right
*> could be community service. MUST be equal to
gravity of crime.
else
perform mete-out-punishment
*> probably prison
end-if
else
perform mete-out-max-punishment
*> long term prison, possibly death
end-if
else
perform quick-painless-termination
end-if
end-if
Even this is nothing like good enough for reality. We need shades of grey in
crime and punishment, and we need to be aware of exactly what we are s ing
to achieve by punishing people.
I'd rather fix something than discard it. But when it cannot be fixed, then
it MUST be discarded.
> If it happens to have a deterrent effect, that's even better - but where
> capital punishment gives you bang for your buck is that your repeat
> offender rate is 0%! :)
>
Lol! True.
wrong).[color=darkred]
are[color=darkred]
>
> Ah - another ally in the war on terror! :) I would also say that
> government is well within its rights, and is executing its duty (no pun
> intended), by executing those who have unjustly taken the life of
> another man.
>
As long as due legal process is observed and it is not just an "Executive
Decision". Only after we are satisfied that the accused had proper access to
any and all means of defence, can we be satisfied we are behaving properly.
(see my point about becoming scum in an earlier post)
is[color=darkred]
crimes[color=darkred]
penalty[color=darkred]
"terrorist"[color=darkred]
>
> This is what I find really interesting. My worldview is based in the
> Bible, yours is based outside. Yet logical, rational, thinking people
> both arrive at the same conclusions.
>
You might be surprised to know, Daniel, that I have had people say to me:
"But as an atheist you have no moral code. How can you possibly resolve
moral dilemmas?" I found this hurtful in the extreme but now it doesn't
bother me. I just live my life and apply the rules I believe in.
Commandment[color=darkred]
didn't[color=darkred]
>
> Strangely enough, the KJV does use the word "murder" 9 times, but Exodus
> 20:13 isn't one of them. Other translations did use that term there.
>
> King James Version - "Thou shalt not kill."
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...20:13&version=9
>
> New International Version - "You shall not murder."
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=31;
>
> New King James Version - "You shall not murder."
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=50;
>
> Holman Christian Standard Bible - "Do not murder."
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=77;
>
the[color=darkred]
language[color=darkred]
any[color=darkred]
differences[color=darkred]
>
> Context could be of some assistance. Exodus 20 is the Ten Commandments,
> which Moses received on the mountain. When he came down, the people had
> created a golden calf and were worshipping it.
This of course, I knew...
> The Lord commanded that
> the calf be ground down, mixed in water, and those who had been
> worshipping it made to drink the water.
> Many got sick, and many died.
> This happened just after He gave the order that the folks back in 1611
> translated as "Thou shalt not kill."
This is I did not know, and I wish you hadn't told me! <G> I purchased
recently a delicious new kiwifruit liquer that has flakes of GOLD in it!
(Apparently Oriental medicine recognizes the healthful effects of gold). It
certainly looks pretty when you pour it and the flakes catch the light. Now
I'll be thinking about Sinai every time I have one...<G>
Pete.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2004-12-16, 3:55 am |
| In-Reply-To: <cpqdpb$12h8$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <277wd.522867$nl.312716@pd7tw3no>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:17:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1103167038 24.71.223.147 (Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:17:18 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:17:18 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com comp.lang.cobol:104824
Chuck Stevens wrote:
>PBS did, however, air a program sometime before 1983 entitled "Being
>Homosexual", and that in prime time with lots of publicity. I saw it before
>I moved from Texas. This was during the period in which Showtime (or was
>it HBO?) was airing "Brothers", so far as I know the first openly-gay-themed
>series (and it might have been the first series developed by Showtime as
>well).
>
>The issue as to whether Sister Mary Ignatius (or for that matter the Rev.
>Fred Phelps) would be thrilled to *see* such a program on PBS is quite
>different from whether PBS would be thrilled to *air* it; my suspicion is
>that the latter is actually quite likely.
>
>
>
Not so sure about that. I was thinking hard, whether or not PBS had such
shows. Don't recall the '83 'Being homosexual'. There's a big difference
between discussion/documentary format and entertainment a la 'Queer as
Folks'. I too don't watch, but sometimes in a desperate and all too
often futile attempt to pick up on something worth watching, I'll
channel surf and in the process get bits of 'Queer as folks...". Wowee -
is that explicit ! All young men, good looking with, yes, beautiful
bodies - but I've zipped already to the next channel
Can only guess at the liberalism of WGBH down there in Boston. Still PBS
is a bunch of 'lefties' to die-hard Republicans - and to me their
attitude is no different to a Bible-totin' southerner.
Even if it was shown in the States be assured I wouldn't see it. Our
feed is from the PBS station KSPS in Spokane, Wa. (Bing's home town).
Don't know political attitudes in Washington State but you are kinda
getting there with Western Montana and Idaho. (For the latter throw in a
soupçon of skin-heads, Aryan Nation etc.). More importantly KSPS gets
over 50% of it's public donations from southern Canada (border portion
of SE BC and the major chunk, southern Alberta all the way up to
Calgary). Certainly rural if they have cable feed and obviously a
majority in Calgary - but this is Bible-totin' country folks !
Jimmy
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And I've been in favor of Woman's suffrage for a long time too!
heh heh heh.... Being married to me, my wife practices that on a daily
basis!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-12-16, 8:55 am |
| In article <3279apF3ivdasU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpl9es$5nf$1@panix5.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Nevertheless, that is the nub of my argument <G>.
And such a *darling* nub it is, too!
>This is very valid, Doc and I do not want to minimise the deterrent effect
>of nuclear weapons. Probably the only reason that I was never required to go
>to war was because of nuclear weapons.
*There* seems to be the difference in the way you and I are looking at
things, Mr Dashwood... it appears that your view includes 'would haves'
and 'could haves' and 'might have beens' that my view lacks. It is most
likely a result of my own, personal limitations... I have enough
difficulties dealing with 'is' and 'was', let alone the unrealised,
possible alternatives.
>
>OK, I'll really try to spell out what I want to get across (I accept that
>the problem is with my expressing and not with anyone's reading.)
>
>Modern technology makes it possible for a small group of people to destroy
>large numbers of people. (I agree that this hasn't happened to any large
>extent, but I hope you'd agree that the possibility is there.) Therefore if
>a large group of people are equipped with modern technology, they could
>potentially destroy a VERY large group of other people. They would do this
>possibly without ever seeing the enemy. It is sanitised and dispassionate.
[snip]
>When this kind of capability is available, there is a very strong pressure
>on military commanders to use it...
But not so strong, Mr Dashwood, that... it has gotten used.
>
>I wonder if Tigerfish would have taken on the Belgrano if the battle was to
>be fought with cannon...or if the mirage pilot would have been so keen
>(against a modern battleship equipped with missiles) if he only had light
>weapons or bombs (as in the second world war in the pacific).
Ummmmm... did you know, Mr Dashwood, that 'had they only' fits into the
class of 'would have' and 'could have' and 'might have been'? That
incident of the Mirage pilot, for instance... during WWII in the Pacific
the Japanese had a tactic they named after the Divine Wind, there might
not have been a need to invoke that because of the modern weapons
available.
>
>The "easier" it is the more tempting it is. Nukes are an exception because
>altough it only takes the synchronised turn of two keys and press of a
>button, the results are very well understood by all concerned. Mutually
>Assured Destruction has proven to be an effective if regrettable policy.
Nukes are only one leg of the NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapon
triumvirate, Mr Dashwood... and the latter two don't seem to get used all
that much, either.
>
>Fair enough. The deterrent effect has worked so far. But it isn't just
>nuclear weapons.
Not too many chem or bio attacks, as noted above, either.
>
>I agree that we are unlikely to see the end of it. My point was that making
>it "easier" doesn't help.
The data appear to contradict that, Mr Dashwood... there haven't been too
many battles of *any* duration where one million, two hundred thousand men
die over a series of days, let alone months.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-12-16, 8:55 am |
| In article <327usqF3i482pU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpmf5m$ffr$1@panix5.panix.com...
>< snipped unregistered or ignored clarification and total failure to even
>TRY and see what I'm talking about...>
Mr Dashwood, with all due respect... you made your statements and I
responded to them in what I consider to be a polite manner which relied on
what seem to be facts; your reply above reminds me of nothing more than
the plaint of 'But you just don't *understand*!'
I believe I *do* 'understand, Mr Dashwood... but I do *not* agree.
>
>Well, that's all right then... <G>
A start, granted.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-12-16, 8:55 am |
| In article <iU8vd.7062$ZP5.1891@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Every so often, someone comes up with "new DNA evidence" which purports
>to absolve some person on death row. Usually, they're in a state that
>discontinued capital punishment, so the person is still alive. I'm not
>as informed on the details as I'd like, but it just strikes me as a bit
>strange, especially with evidence that somewhat routinely (again, not
>sure of the exact statistic) gets thrown out of court for being tainted
>or obtained illegally.
Ahhhhh, the old 'I heard something about this, somewhere, that sometimes
this happens'... *such* a forceful argument! Perhaps you might wish to
take a look at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ .
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-12-16, 3:55 pm |
| In article <cppl0f$6h0$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> On 14-Dec-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Also - man isn't unique in creating war. Unfortunate that we are more like
> chimps than bonobos.
That was a typo -- sorry about that. It should have read:
'I hardly think it is the WORST obscenity man has created'.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-12-16, 3:55 pm |
| In article <326brpF3ibl2hU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> OK, I think I have what you are saying. Your dispute is with "increase".
> There have been many skirmishes around the World during the period you
> elected to discuss (I did not put dates on my statement). I agree that
> "increase" is vague and I was actually referring to the scale of casualties
> rather than the number of conflicts. These days technology makes it possible
> for accurate, efficient killing (fire and forget, smart bombs, and so on) so
> the casualties in conflict are higher than they would have been in a
> conflict of similar size (in terms of numbers of combatants), BEFORE these
> weapons were available. (That's probably why they were developed.)
>
> If we consider major battles in a previous era, 1,200,000 men died on the
> Somme in four and a half months, the British losing 60,000 in one day. Had
> they had tactical nuclear weapons the whole thing would have been over in
> days as the underground German bunkers which withstood the allied barrage
> would not have done so if nuclear shells had been used. You would have ended
> up with around a million dead Germans (instead of 650,000) and Verdun would
> have been relieved sooner.
>
> My contention (which I did not make as clear as I should have) is that
> modern weapons cause more deaths with less effort, and discomfort to the
> user. This capability is partly responsible for war still being considered
> an acceptable option for dispute resolution.
>
> Pete.
I see what you are saying, but I can't help but think you have it
completely backwards.
Compare the collateral damage in the bombing of Dresden or Schweinfurt
to the collateral damage in recent bombing Kabul or Bagdad. Smarter,
more powerful weapons allow troops to surgically remove whatever they
want. The older, dumber, weapons were akin to amputation as a
catch-all. The end result is less killing.
The last 60 years have seen less and less in the way of massive wars.
The idea that any war could cause a nuclear nation to start throwing
atomic weapons around has been a controlling and limiting factor.
There were a number of incidents between the various democracies and the
USSR equal or greater than the murder of a minor piece of nobility in a
backwater state. None were ever allowed to escalate to the level of the
Great War and battles like the Somme BECAUSE of the fear of nuclear
weapons.
You suggest that war is not an acceptable option for dispute resolution
-- how can you say that without knowing the alternative?
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-16, 8:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:UW5vd.7052$ZP5.2169@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
<snip>>[color=darkred]
> Reminds me of the seminar with a bunch of CEOs. The speaker said "Okay,
> we're all on an airplane. Just before the doors close, the pilot comes
> on the speaker and says that the software for the plane was programmed
> by your firm. How many of you would get off the plane?" Every hand in
> the place went up, save one. The speaker asked him "You're that
> confident of your programmers?" The man replied, "No - if it were
> programmed by my firm, it'll never get off the ground."
>
ROFL!
Excellent.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-16, 8:55 pm |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-02079C.09364816122004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> In article <326brpF3ibl2hU1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
casualties[color=darkred]
possible[color=darkred]
on) so[color=darkred]
these[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
Had[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
barrage[color=darkred]
ended[color=darkred]
would[color=darkred]
considered[color=darkred]
>
> I see what you are saying, but I can't help but think you have it
> completely backwards.
>
Fair enough. Maybe I have.
> Compare the collateral damage in the bombing of Dresden or Schweinfurt
> to the collateral damage in recent bombing Kabul or Bagdad. Smarter,
> more powerful weapons allow troops to surgically remove whatever they
> want. The older, dumber, weapons were akin to amputation as a
> catch-all. The end result is less killing.
>
> The last 60 years have seen less and less in the way of massive wars.
> The idea that any war could cause a nuclear nation to start throwing
> atomic weapons around has been a controlling and limiting factor.
>
I agreed that. But I don't want to reopen this whole discussion.
> There were a number of incidents between the various democracies and the
> USSR equal or greater than the murder of a minor piece of nobility in a
> backwater state. None were ever allowed to escalate to the level of the
> Great War and battles like the Somme BECAUSE of the fear of nuclear
> weapons.
>
> You suggest that war is not an acceptable option for dispute resolution
> -- how can you say that without knowing the alternative?
>
Because the alternatives are well known. There are mechanisms for Conflict
Resolution (they form the underpinnings of Negotiation as a science.) There
is a whole pschology of Conflict Resolution that examines the causes and
most usual triggers of conflict. Have a look at Mayers Wheel on GOOGLE. I
am currently preparing seminars for presentation to industry based on
exactly this, and moving on to Negotiation. Useful skills for everybody, and
particularly, middle and senior managers. I KNOW that disputes, even the
most complex ones CAN be resolved, without war. I know this because I have
been resolving disputes and negotiating for the last 25 years. I have done
some formal training in it, but most of my "expertise" in this has been
acquired "on the job".
War is simply one strategy that can be appealing where you have miltary
superiority. It saves a lot of time and the outcome is more or less
guaranteed. If you are not concerned over the likely costs in human and
resource terms, it is a useful option. The trouble is that once someone uses
it, all other parties have to use it too. (Escalation).
I am not naive or foolish enough to believe we are ever going to eliminate
it, but we can certainly ensure it is an option of last resort.
In the commmercial arena when companies go to "war" there are seldom true
"winners". That is why you have the major players forming cartels (overtly
or covertly) to protect themselves from the effect of a true market with
competition in it. Oil companies are a prime example...they pretend to be at
war but the reality is very different. Airlines too, spring immediately to
mind.
(Think about Freddy Laker... forced out of business by price cutting and as
soon as he was gone, a hike in air fares conveniently blamed on uncertainty
over oil...The major airlines concerned lost some money getting him out, but
within 6 months they had recouped it as if he had never been there. Check
out the war between Virgin and British Airways. Branston was made of
different stuff and had the resources to fight back.(Only by selling his
music business to support his airline) Nevertheless, Virgin Airlines were on
a knife edge for quite some time.)
While A and B are perceived to be overtly competing (having secretly agreed
limits that will protect them both), X, Y, and Z are forced out of business,
leaving A and B to carve the market up between themselves.
Even bullies can be persuaded to eschew force as a means of influence. (All
it takes is a greater force, or the perception of one... <G> ).
I am not advocating that we should all disband our militaries (even if I
wish we could...). I am simply saying we should not be keen to use war as an
option.
Pete.
>
| |
| James J. Gavan 2004-12-16, 8:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>While A and B are perceived to be overtly competing (having secretly agreed
>limits that will protect them both), X, Y, and Z are forced out of business,
>leaving A and B to carve the market up between themselves.
>
>
>
Completely off the topic of war, but I don't know if you realize it but
your statement above describes the US Presidential debates. The whole
thing is fixed, creating an 'entertainment'.
Young Indian (East) about 35, analysed the history of presidential
debates, and came up with the 'rules'. The Republicans and Democrats
shut out the others, Greens, Ralph Nader, whoever. The major two enter
into a 'contract', where debates will be held, format sit-down/stand-up,
formal, folksy town-hall group etc. Timed replies to questions - BUT
even more significant - you don't get to jump in, when your opponent is
making his little spiel. (From TV footage, I believe Gore did that first
time around to Dubya, who protested, "You are breaking your own rules....").
They even pick the 'quizz masters' from the media. Footage years ago of
Barbara Walters introducing the two candidates (????), but she stressed
after her welcome, she had to protest on behalf of her profession, "The
three journalists you see sat here were the only ones acceptable to the
two candidates".
What a joke !
PS: Source for the above - that 'commie' channel - PBS, with Commissar
Bill Moyers on 'NOW'.
Jimmy
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpivcg$i89$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3248o4F3fa9s6U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
days[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
>
> Ahhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when a man could be brave in war such as
> *ten* men cannot, today!
>
Indeed.
>
> Quite right, Mr Dashwood... after all, Europe was notorious free of war
> prior to 1932 and for the half-century and change since 1945 has been
> absolutely *riddled* with it...
>
> ... and I am the King of England. The past half-century has been utter
> anomalous when it comes to wars.
>
You somehow missed the qualifying "partly" in my statement. Not like you...
guess I'm not the only one who's getting old <G>
Pete
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-17, 3:55 am |
|
On 10-Dec-2004, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> So we can "Translate" the Holy Writ as "Thou shalt not commit unlawful
> killing."
No. We can still kill plants.
| |
|
| Richard wrote:
>
>
> So what do _you_ think an 'atheist' is ?
>
> Someone who doesn't believe in _your_ 'god' ?
> Someone who doesn't believe in someone else's 'god' ?
> Someone who doesn't believe in _any_ 'god' ?
The latter, and the dictionary backs me up.
Atheist - one who believes that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...atheist&x=0&y=0
One would think, being the opposite of "theist" (definition for "theism"
came up...) - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :
belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man
and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...=theist&x=0&y=0
What Pete was saying was that some folks seemed astounded that there
could be a moral atheist. (I was not among them.)
> It seems likely that you don't believe in any of the thousands of
> 'gods' except for just one (or perhaps some of the others such as
> baalzebub). It may be that you are just 'one god' different from what
> you probably call an atheist. You don't believe in thousands of them,
> they don't believe in just one more.
You're playing with words. I forget what Olympics or what sport, but
the only two entries were the USA and the USSR. The USA won - so, the
headlines in the USSR read "USSR places 2nd - USA next to last". There
is a *huge* difference between a monotheist and an atheist. The former
believes in a single deity, the latter believes there can be no deity.
Yes, it's one "god" off, but that one is a big number.
> In fact I believe in all the gods (well some may be entirely fictional,
> certainly some religions are), it is just that they were no more space
> pixies than I am.
You "believe in" them? They can't all be right. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| James J. Gavan 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| LX-i wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
>
I've been *wanting* to ask this for ages, but you have expressed a
reticence to elaborate. I don't want to get into a fight or even pick
holes in your answer. Care to expand - just a *little* ?
Possibly not, but was your father an aetheist ? Assuming he wasn't then
regardless of whether you went to a secular public school or other,
inevitably there in the background, as part of NZ society, back then, an
element of 'Christianity' would have crept through. To wit, your love of
literature. Take phrases like Tennyson's from On Westminster Bridge,
"Dear God the very houses seem asleep.....". You and I both know what
the poet is attempting to describe, even ignoring the word 'God'.
Even accepting Richard's premise that the Israelite tales are mythical,
I think we could all agree that the Ten Commandments (excluding the
first), are a pretty wise set of rules for any human to follow - and
are the most challenging set of rules for mankind. to observe. We all
break many of them consistently.
So what was your particular path Pete, and no dispute about your own
personal morality, how did you arrive at your own set of rules to live by ?
Jimmy
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:iU8vd.7062$ZP5.1891@fe40.usenetserver.com...
>
> Fair call. (It is a bit of a worry that the perimeter was poorly enough
> secured to allow people to come and take potshots at the people in the
> camp.)
He didn't go into it, but I imagine that was taken care of as well. The
ambush was probably meant for the security patrols, but the runners got
there first.
> No, it isn't. It's a pity we can't find less disastrous ways to resolve our
> differences, though.
Agreed - I don't like war any more than the next guy. But, if that's
the way it's gotta be, then I for sure want our country to be able to
take care of business.
> I read a book many years ago by a General Hackman (British, I think) called
> "The Third World War". It was written during the Cold War and he postulated
> incidents occuring on the East German border, and escalating until Russian
> tanks were sweeping into Europe. At some point the heavily outnumbered NATO
> commander had to use Tactical Nuclear weapons, and this in turn escalated to
> the use of Strategic Nuclear weapons. The interesting thing about the book
> was that, unlike more conventional conflicts that go on for years, this one
> could not last more than four days. The reason was that the consumption of
> resources during mutual nuclear attack was such that there could be no means
> of production and no infrastructure to produce more munitions, after four
> days. Everything was plain wiped out.
Reminds me of the movie _WarGames_, where, due to the prompting of
Matthew Broderick's character (who caused the whole mess to begin with),
the computer decides to run scenarios for Global Thermonuclear War
before actually launching the missiles and starting WWIII. Every
scenario the computer came up with was MAD (mutually-assured
destruction). The final comments - "An interesting game - the only
winning move is not to play."
>
> Our BMT was not really stressful.
Ours was for some people - me, I was older, and I knew going in was just
a mind game. Still, when we were doing push-ups and the TI's were
saying things about our wives doing that back home, it got to me a
little. It was interesting how our lead TI's were nowhere to be found
when we did our M-16 qualification. :)
> The stress came in the difficulty of the tasks we were set. We lost three
> guys and one instructor (hospitalized) during training - people really
> shouldn't mess with hand grenades and I'm not sure that live fire is helpful
> on a training exercise...- but by the end of it we were ready for anything.
Ouch! Reminds me of _Starship Troopers_ - "MEDIC!" ;) It was funny in
the movie, but it's not in real life.
> "The Air Force might be a good place to be..." <G>
We're one of the few branches that send our officers out to do the
fighting, while the enlisted folks stay behind.
> Can't comment. Apart form saying that it might be wise not to taint or
> illegally obtain it...
Doc's posted a website that seems to be an organization dedicated to
exonerating death row inmates.
>
> Agreed. Anything that is downright malicious (or mean) comes in this
> category.
So what kind of murder isn't malicious or mean?
> Ah, but that's because we don't share a desire for "punishment", Daniel. <G>
Painless termination for terrorists and pedophiles? I know, the law is
supposed to be unemotional. However, we can puncture the back of a
baby's skull and suck out its little brains (which I'm sure causes no
pain at all - NOT!), but we've got to be painless with those folks? I
believe that God will take care of judgment, so I guess it'd be okay.
>
> Hypothetical. But I'll try...
>
> If I got 5 years in jail and knew I deserved it, I might consider that was
> fair and, having "paid my debt to society" (what a pathetic phrase that
> really is...),
Agreed there... :)
> resolve to behave in future. (5 years with "Good behaviour"
> (and mine would be exemplary... <G> ), would be nearer three in NZ). A lot
> would depend on the time inside. If I was degraded and demeaned my worldview
> would probably change and I'd come out feeling "society had a debt to me". I
> would then embark on the dwindling spiral that would simply cost the
> taxpayer a lot more money.(I have a feeling that may have been part of the
> idea in the remake of "Cape Fear" (the De Niro one)...not sure.)
Didn't see that one (strange, with all the other movie references I've
used in this post...)
> I don't see "punishment" as a rehabilition tool UNLESS it involves the perp
> taking responsibility for what he did and deciding that it would be better
> to try and fix it. That "change of mind" should be genuine because it makes
> sense, and not simply induced by the fear of punishment and the desire to
> avoid it.
How can you "make" someone take responsibility for their actions? You
can't, and you're right about it needing to be a change of mind (or,
some would say, heart). What you *can* do is enforce the due
consequences for actions.
> I was talking with an elderly lady here a few days ago, who had been beaten
> (some years ago) and had her house invaded by a man who was caught. He was
> jailed for some time (I honestly don't know how long and I didn't ask her.)
> Some time afterwards, the perp came to her house. She was terrified and
> threatened to call the Police, but he simply said: "I thought about what I
> did, and I am truly sorry. If you let me, I'll try and make it up to you."
> He ended up painting her house for her, though she never let him inside. It
> got to a point where they could sit on the verandah and have tea or coffee
> together and neither of them ever spoke of it again. When the house was
> done, he thanked her for helping him work it out, and she has never seen him
> since.
>
> I reckon that has to be better (for all concerned) than 50 lashes or
> mutilation...
That's a great outcome, most definitely...
>
> Sure, but NOT as a general rule, Daniel, and I did say that that contrived
> COBOL "logic" is NOT suitable for Reality.
Now, if I wanted to take that out of context, I could just quote the
last line, as it appears in my editor now...
> COBOL "logic" is NOT suitable for Reality.
heh - I understand what you're saying.
>
> Thanks, I actually checked it in the Book a little while ago. Exodus 32:16.
Good. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| In article <eeqvd.7418$ZP5.3530@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>By prefacing my skepticism by admitting my ignorance, I don't think my
>opinion carried much force. :) I try not to go off half-cocked...
I'm sorry, I'm missing something... your original statement, followed by
my observation, were:
--begin quoted text:
>Every so often, someone comes up with "new DNA evidence" which purports
>to absolve some person on death row. Usually, they're in a state that
>discontinued capital punishment, so the person is still alive. I'm not
>as informed on the details as I'd like, but it just strikes me as a bit
>strange, especially with evidence that somewhat routinely (again, not
>sure of the exact statistic) gets thrown out of court for being tainted
>or obtained illegally.
Ahhhhh, the old 'I heard something about this, somewhere, that sometimes
this happens'... *such* a forceful argument! Perhaps you might wish to
take a look at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ .
--end quoted text
.... and in the middle of this is 'I'm not as informed on the details as
I'd like', not as a preface, and you then proceed to a conclusion
appearing to accept most, if not all, of what went before.
DD
| |
| Richard 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| > There is a *huge* difference between a monotheist and an atheist.
> The former believes in a single deity, the latter believes there can
be no deity.
> Yes, it's one "god" off, but that one is a big number.
Not to me. Because all the various religions have _different_ gods
then there are thousands that you disbelieve in. OTOH, the other
religions disbelieve in your god as well as in most of the others.
> In fact I believe in all the gods (well some may be entirely
fictional,
> certainly some religions are), it is just that they were no more
space
> pixies than I am.
You "believe in" them? They can't all be right. :)
I believe that they all existed, even yours, but as men not
supernaturals. There was a great deal of exageration of exactly the
type that occurs even today about leaders.
For example:
""" --------------------
As the years went on, Amin's eccentricities slowly descended into
childlike madness. He began wearing so many medals his shirts would
often tear from the weight. As his ego swelled, he granted himself a
series of increasingly grand titles, including President for Life,
"Conqueror of the British Empire," and even "King of Scotland." In 1975
he was elected president of the Organisation of African Unity. By the
end of his reign, his full title was: "His Excellency President for
Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All
the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the
British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."
--------------------- """
""" --------------------
Kim is described as the "iron-willed, ever-victorious commander", the
"great sun and great man", the "great leader", the "great father", the
"sun of the nation", the "clairvoyant", "the supreme brain of the
nation", a "matchless patriot" and "national hero", and "one of the
genius leaders of the international communist movement and workers'
movement". He comes to be seen by North Koreans as a semi-divine
emperor.
....
The personality cult will be extended to Kim's son, Kim Jong Il, who is
dubbed the 'Dear Leader' and described as "a genius of 10,000 talents",
"the morning star", the "central brain".
--------------"""
Who knows what followers will be saying about them in a thousand years
or two.
Probably that they created the world.
| |
| Richard 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| > I note you didn't refute the use of the word 'antagonistic'.
There is probably no point in doing so. I just write words, I have no
control over what colour or font you see them in, nor the tone of voice
you hear when you read them.
> At nineteen I was approached by a predator - without any success on
his part, I might add.
Weren't we all ?
> *providing* you don't push to insist I must accept your particular
way of life as a regular normal lifestyle.
Do you mean 'they don't push' .. 'their particular' .. ? or are you
completely misinformed about me ?
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| Good on you, Bill!
Pete.
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xkvvd.6745487$6p.1057906@news.easynews.com...
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1102999108.426322.291380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
> JOKE !!!
> I know how you feel. ...
> I have been approached by heterosexuals trying to convert me (some
before I
> turned 19 years old) - more often that I care to think of.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
|
"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B4D0D6.F2966EEE@mb.sympatico.ca...
> Perhaps the "10 cubits" is the INSIDE diameter. Perhaps the "30 cubits"
> is measured along the inside diameter. Perhaps the writer didn't
> understand what he was transcribing.
My Green's literal translation of the Masoretic Text for 1Sam 7:23 has "And
he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim; it was round all
about. And its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits went
around it round about."
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
|
On 13-Dec-2004, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> behave is
> eternity
>
> People are brought up that if they cry when their teeth fall out the
> Tooth Fairy will not visit them. They are taught that if they are not
> good children then the demigod Santa won't bring them presents and he
> will _know_ if they are bad.
Some. But not everybody is threatened with punishment for being bad - stronger
than a parent's displeasure.
Watch children learn. They watch others carefully and imitate them.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
|
> Kill/murder - call it what you want. My conscientious objector friend
> had it right, "War is an obscenity". But unlike him or Bill, I wouldn't
> have been "brave" enough to object, or even nip across the border to
> avoid conscription. I'd fall into line, just like the majority. Perhaps
> as were emplaning, fully kitted out, to go to the 'theatre of action', I
> might be somewhat querulous when I noted body bags being de planed at
> another hangar on the airfield. Bit late then.
I agree with you, war is indeed an obscenity. But unlike your friend or
Bill, I hardly think it is the obscenity man has created.
Far worse obscenities exist -- targeting jewish/gypsy/gay people for
death -- slavery, either state or individual owned -- war is hardly the
worst invention of mankind.
I don't fault your fear, in fact I agree with it. But I don't see any
bravery in doing nothing in the face of greater obscenity. The worst
creation of mankind is to sit and watch while his fellow man is robbed
of his liberty and human dignity.
The worst obscenity is for good men to do nothing.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpl9es$5nf$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <326brpF3ibl2hU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:cpk229$fvs$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
war[color=darkred]
been[color=darkred]
utter[color=darkred]
you...[color=darkred]
(as[color=darkred]
casualties[color=darkred]
>
> Thanks for clearing that up, Mr Dashwood.
>
so[color=darkred]
these[color=darkred]
>
> Such things are possible, certainly... but that they are possible does not
> mean they occur.
>
Nevertheless, that is the nub of my argument <G>.
>
> Hasn't been a battle with that kind of casuality rate in a goodly while,
> Mr Dashwood.
>
ended[color=darkred]
would[color=darkred]
>
> Would have, should have, could have... to the best of my knowledge, Mr
> Dashwood, tactical nukes have been available to more than one country for
> more than a half-century... and there has not been the sort of carnage
> seen at the Somme. Funny how that works, isn't it?
>
This is very valid, Doc and I do not want to minimise the deterrent effect
of nuclear weapons. Probably the only reason that I was never required to go
to war was because of nuclear weapons.
OK, I'll really try to spell out what I want to get across (I accept that
the problem is with my expressing and not with anyone's reading.)
Modern technology makes it possible for a small group of people to destroy
large numbers of people. (I agree that this hasn't happened to any large
extent, but I hope you'd agree that the possibility is there.) Therefore if
a large group of people are equipped with modern technology, they could
potentially destroy a VERY large group of other people. They would do this
possibly without ever seeing the enemy. It is sanitised and dispassionate.
(HMS Sheffield in the Falklands crisis was destroyed by an exocet missile
launched from a Mirage below the horizon, they never saw what hit them until
it was too late; HMS Tigerfish sank the Belgrano with a torpedo that was
fired from over 25 miles away while fully submerged.)
When this kind of capability is available, there is a very strong pressure
on military commanders to use it...
I wonder if Tigerfish would have taken on the Belgrano if the battle was to
be fought with cannon...or if the mirage pilot would have been so keen
(against a modern battleship equipped with missiles) if he only had light
weapons or bombs (as in the second world war in the pacific).
The "easier" it is the more tempting it is. Nukes are an exception because
altough it only takes the synchronised turn of two keys and press of a
button, the results are very well understood by all concerned. Mutually
Assured Destruction has proven to be an effective if regrettable policy.
>
> And yet... by the example you give, more deaths aren't caused by 'modern
> weapons'; cruise missiles take out single buildings instead of entire
> cities, pinpoint bombings of military targets do remarkably little
> collateral damage to civilian populations, chemical, biological and
> nuclear weapons just... don't get used, for the most part. Funny how that
> works, isn't it?
>
Fair enough. The deterrent effect has worked so far. But it isn't just
nuclear weapons.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, Mr Dashwood, war has been with the human
> species for a goodly long while... it might take almost half as long to
> get the concept discarded.
>
I agree that we are unlikely to see the end of it. My point was that making
it "easier" doesn't help.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:K5qvd.7415$ZP5.6165@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> He didn't go into it, but I imagine that was taken care of as well. The
> ambush was probably meant for the security patrols, but the runners got
> there first.
>
our[color=darkred]
>
> Agreed - I don't like war any more than the next guy. But, if that's
> the way it's gotta be, then I for sure want our country to be able to
> take care of business.
>
called[color=darkred]
postulated[color=darkred]
Russian[color=darkred]
NATO[color=darkred]
escalated to[color=darkred]
book[color=darkred]
one[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
means[color=darkred]
four[color=darkred]
>
> Reminds me of the movie _WarGames_, where, due to the prompting of
> Matthew Broderick's character (who caused the whole mess to begin with),
> the computer decides to run scenarios for Global Thermonuclear War
> before actually launching the missiles and starting WWIII. Every
> scenario the computer came up with was MAD (mutually-assured
> destruction). The final comments - "An interesting game - the only
> winning move is not to play."
>
Absolutely. When people start arguing about the evils of nuclear weapons, it
is pretty hard to defend, yet the deterrent effect is a very valid reason
for the existence of them.
>
> Ours was for some people - me, I was older, and I knew going in was just
> a mind game. Still, when we were doing push-ups and the TI's were
> saying things about our wives doing that back home, it got to me a
> little. It was interesting how our lead TI's were nowhere to be found
> when we did our M-16 qualification. :)
>
Lol! I can really relate to that. See, ours, who had always treated us
reasonably, had nothing to fear... <G>
three[color=darkred]
helpful[color=darkred]
anything.[color=darkred]
>
> Ouch! Reminds me of _Starship Troopers_ - "MEDIC!" ;) It was funny in
> the movie, but it's not in real life.
>
>
> We're one of the few branches that send our officers out to do the
> fighting, while the enlisted folks stay behind.
>
>
> Doc's posted a website that seems to be an organization dedicated to
> exonerating death row inmates.
>
>
> So what kind of murder isn't malicious or mean?
>
Your example pertained to the workplace, Daniel, so my answer was within
that framework. Don't get a lot of murders on my projects, but you can rest
assured, anyone found killing colleagues would be instantly dismissed...<G>
<G>[color=darkred]
>
> Painless termination for terrorists and pedophiles? I know, the law is
> supposed to be unemotional. However, we can puncture the back of a
> baby's skull and suck out its little brains (which I'm sure causes no
> pain at all - NOT!), but we've got to be painless with those folks? I
> believe that God will take care of judgment, so I guess it'd be okay.
>
was[color=darkred]
>
> Agreed there... :)
>
lot[color=darkred]
worldview[color=darkred]
me". I[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
> Didn't see that one (strange, with all the other movie references I've
> used in this post...)
>
perp[color=darkred]
better[color=darkred]
makes[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> How can you "make" someone take responsibility for their actions? You
> can't, and you're right about it needing to be a change of mind (or,
> some would say, heart). What you *can* do is enforce the due
> consequences for actions.
>
beaten[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
her.)[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
you."[color=darkred]
It[color=darkred]
coffee[color=darkred]
him[color=darkred]
>
> That's a great outcome, most definitely...
>
contrived[color=darkred]
>
> Now, if I wanted to take that out of context, I could just quote the
> last line, as it appears in my editor now...
>
>
> heh - I understand what you're saying.
>
32:16.[color=darkred]
>
> Good. :)
>
Yes, it is sometimes referred to as the "Good Book" though considering the
mayhem in the contents of it, I'm not quite sure why...<G>
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:cUtvd.505325$%k.324729@pd7tw2no...
<snip>
>
> Smaller nation - less conflict, primarily ex-Brits and Maoris - you've
> been able to resolve most of your problems.
This is way off the beam, Jimmy. NZ is NOT paradise (well, the bit where I
live is close, but you know what I mean...<G> ).
We have problems here with unresolved treaty issues between European and
Maori. We are working on it. Maori and Europeans of goodwill are trying to
contain a lunatic fringe on both sides. It will be resolved and, hopefully,
without Civil War, or a repetition of the 1860s when Maori fought the
British. (They were never defeated, by the way. It was kind of declared a
draw, but there were many injustices and ignominies on both sides.)
Secondly, those of us who were born here do not consider ourselves ex-Brits.
We are New Zealanders and proud of it. (That is no reflection on the
British, whom I hold in high regard and affection. They were good to me
during my sojourn in their islands; I hope that those who ARE ex-Brits in
our society enjoy their stay here equally as much. Some of them are now
adopted Kiwis (like Richard) and we consider them as ourselves. Anyone who
embraces our life style and values is welcome here. Problems arise when this
doesn't happen, but the hope is in the young people and the generations born
here. They see more than their parents, sometimes.)
As I mentioned previously, there is rich diversity here. We have MANY
different nationalities and they all contribute to contemporary Kiwi life
and culture. Yes, there are squabbles and friction sometimes, but you are
unlikely to see things like the Watts riots in L.A. or the Brixton riots in
London. It isn't our way and I hope it never becomes so; it is hard to say
it never will, as we are subject to television from England, Australia and
the States... We already have Maori Rap music...(no comment).
> Democracy is a tough grind
> as countries get bigger.
>
Yes, it is. But the necessity is to get to the kids and instil in them the
love of, need for, and appreciation of, freedom and tolerance. A "fair go"
for everybody...
Pete.
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1102999108.426322.291380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
> his part, I might add.
>
> Weren't we all ?
>
JOKE !!!
I know how you feel. ...
I have been approached by heterosexuals trying to convert me (some before I
turned 19 years old) - more often that I care to think of.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1102999108.426322.291380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> There is probably no point in doing so. I just write words, I have no
> control over what colour or font you see them in, nor the tone of voice
> you hear when you read them.
>
> his part, I might add.
>
> Weren't we all ?
Not me...now I feel like I missed out <G>. Maybe I was just too
unattractive...<G>
>
> way of life as a regular normal lifestyle.
>
> Do you mean 'they don't push' .. 'their particular' .. ? or are you
> completely misinformed about me ?
>
It's really easy to see how a few words misunderstood can lead to chaos...
<G>
Let's agree that neither of you are of any particular persuasion and even if
you were it would be all right? (Cheesh!)
Pete.
>
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| Top posted just to be different...
Hmmm, I agree that the various conflict resolution mechanisms are great
for resolving disputes and should be used wherever possible. In most
cases they are just great.
But they suffer from a fatal flaw -- all parties to a dispute must agree
to participate. It does no good to have one party show up and
decapitate the arbitrator (therapist?).
What form of conflict resolution would you suggest to resolve Osama Bin
Laden's dispute with western democracies to both parties satisfaction?
What middle ground is there for the FARC and the elected government of
Columbia? Or the christian Sudanesse and the muslim Sudanesse?
How do you negotiate a resolution when one parties absolute,
unalterable, position is -- "those guys over there are evil and must die
to make the world right".
In article <32ekvkF3lmbbhU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Because the alternatives are well known. There are mechanisms for Conflict
> Resolution (they form the underpinnings of Negotiation as a science.) There
> is a whole pschology of Conflict Resolution that examines the causes and
> most usual triggers of conflict. Have a look at Mayers Wheel on GOOGLE. I
> am currently preparing seminars for presentation to industry based on
> exactly this, and moving on to Negotiation. Useful skills for everybody, and
> particularly, middle and senior managers. I KNOW that disputes, even the
> most complex ones CAN be resolved, without war. I know this because I have
> been resolving disputes and negotiating for the last 25 years. I have done
> some formal training in it, but most of my "expertise" in this has been
> acquired "on the job".
>
> War is simply one strategy that can be appealing where you have miltary
> superiority. It saves a lot of time and the outcome is more or less
> guaranteed. If you are not concerned over the likely costs in human and
> resource terms, it is a useful option. The trouble is that once someone uses
> it, all other parties have to use it too. (Escalation).
>
> I am not naive or foolish enough to believe we are ever going to eliminate
> it, but we can certainly ensure it is an option of last resort.
>
> In the commmercial arena when companies go to "war" there are seldom true
> "winners". That is why you have the major players forming cartels (overtly
> or covertly) to protect themselves from the effect of a true market with
> competition in it. Oil companies are a prime example...they pretend to be at
> war but the reality is very different. Airlines too, spring immediately to
> mind.
>
> (Think about Freddy Laker... forced out of business by price cutting and as
> soon as he was gone, a hike in air fares conveniently blamed on uncertainty
> over oil...The major airlines concerned lost some money getting him out, but
> within 6 months they had recouped it as if he had never been there. Check
> out the war between Virgin and British Airways. Branston was made of
> different stuff and had the resources to fight back.(Only by selling his
> music business to support his airline) Nevertheless, Virgin Airlines were on
> a knife edge for quite some time.)
>
> While A and B are perceived to be overtly competing (having secretly agreed
> limits that will protect them both), X, Y, and Z are forced out of business,
> leaving A and B to carve the market up between themselves.
>
> Even bullies can be persuaded to eschew force as a means of influence. (All
> it takes is a greater force, or the perception of one... <G> ).
>
> I am not advocating that we should all disband our militaries (even if I
> wish we could...). I am simply saying we should not be keen to use war as an
> option.
>
> Pete.
| |
| Donald Tees 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> Top posted just to be different...
>
> Hmmm, I agree that the various conflict resolution mechanisms are great
> for resolving disputes and should be used wherever possible. In most
> cases they are just great.
>
> But they suffer from a fatal flaw -- all parties to a dispute must agree
> to participate. It does no good to have one party show up and
> decapitate the arbitrator (therapist?).
>
> What form of conflict resolution would you suggest to resolve Osama Bin
> Laden's dispute with western democracies to both parties satisfaction?
> What middle ground is there for the FARC and the elected government of
> Columbia? Or the christian Sudanesse and the muslim Sudanesse?
>
> How do you negotiate a resolution when one parties absolute,
> unalterable, position is -- "those guys over there are evil and must die
> to make the world right".
>
Laws, and courts. Not vigilante action.
Donald
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| In article <jmDwd.27901$%p1.1824362@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
> Laws, and courts. Not vigilante action.
>
> Donald
Cute idea. The FARC are well known for blowing up the Judges who
preside over those courts.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpmf5m$ffr$1@panix5.panix.com...
< snipped unregistered or ignored clarification and total failure to even
TRY and see what I'm talking about...>
>I agree that we are unlikely to see the end of it. My point was that
making
>
> The data appear to contradict that, Mr Dashwood... there haven't been too
> many battles of *any* duration where one million, two hundred thousand men
> die over a series of days, let alone months.
>
Well, that's all right then... <G>
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
On 17-Dec-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> But they suffer from a fatal flaw -- all parties to a dispute must agree
> to participate. It does no good to have one party show up and
> decapitate the arbitrator (therapist?).
>
> What form of conflict resolution would you suggest to resolve Osama Bin
> Laden's dispute with western democracies to both parties satisfaction?
> What middle ground is there for the FARC and the elected government of
> Columbia? Or the christian Sudanesse and the muslim Sudanesse?
Lots of times the best solution for one country is politically unacceptable for
that country.
Bin Laden's position has been improved by Iraq's overthrow. After 9/11 he was
the bad guy. After Kuwait, Sadaam was the bad guy. Now the bad guy is the
U.S. (and always Israel). Bush Sr. knew how valuable it was to us for the
other Islamic countries to have a local bad guy.
Our security and our oil supplies were not hurt long term by Iran's overthrow.
When the Ayatollahs became the establishment, they became interested in security
and stability. But there's no way we could have supported this change - even
though it may be better for us in the long run than what didn't happen in Saudi
Arabia.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
|
On 17-Dec-2004, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Laws, and courts. Not vigilante action.
If you *know* you're right and the establishment (laws and courts) are wrong -
because God told you so, why would you listen to laws and courts?
Or even if God didn't tell you so - George Washington wasn't satisfied with laws
and courts.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:R6Hud.6314$ZP5.1939@fe40.usenetserver.com...
>
>
> Daniel, your opinions here are as valuable as anyone else's, whatever your
> stated predilection. Don't be afraid to post. Just respond as you have done
> and avoid tub thumping (not that you do... but you know what I mean).
Oh, it's not that I'm afraid - it's the time I end up feeling compelled
to spend. It's not really fair of me to reply to others' posts with my
opinions, but then not reply to their subsequent replies. :)
> Having said that, I also believe the state has the right to kill (or it
> should do). But then, I don't accept the commandment in the first place.
>
> For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded that
> the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:
>
> 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
> executed.
> 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
> extreme anti-social behaviour.
> 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).
Which you discuss below... as will I... ;)
> I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people being blown
> to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what Cromwell did
> or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs gone,
> maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
> "soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly murder.
>
> It made me very  (especially after a couple of near misses myself). I
> don't know how many of you have ever been shot at, but in my case (it
> happened in Bangladesh, and again in Beirut, although that was less
> personal, I just happened to be in the wrong place...), my reaction was
> not what I would have expected. I would expect to be very afraid; that isn't
> what happened. All I felt was anger. "Those people are trying to kill me and
> they don't even KNOW me! Bastards!" If I had had a gun I would certainly
> have returned fire with the intention of killing someone. (It is easy to see
> how wars start...). The London bombings had a similar effect on me, and made
> me re-think my whole consideration about capital punishment. If these guys
> are such "soldiers", let's use a firing squad...
I've never been shot at (thankfully), but I did have a gun pulled on me
once. I've heard that the response is something as you've described
above. One of our instructors at Airman Leadership School (the military
eduction the USAF puts you through before you become an NCO) told us
about the time he and his other Airmen had been running while they were
deployed in Kuwait during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. People from
off base started shooting at them through the fence of the base. He
said that it's like time slowed down to about 1/10 the speed, and that
they high-tailed it away from the fence behind some cover.
No one was shot during that incident, but he did have friends that died
when the lone SCUD missile hit the barracks a few days later.
> Examining the above arguments again...
>
> 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
> executed.
>
> Yes. I still believe that. There must be NO doubt that someone is guilty
> before the law sanctions termination. I also believe the execution should be
> painless and quick. A needle in the back of the hand saves the taxpayer a
> lot of money and rids the world of someone who was totally unsuited to live
> in it. (And, yes, I would take the same position if it was my nearest and
> dearest or even myself.)
I'm with you there. However, I'm a bit skeptical of this "recent DNA
evidence" stuff that anti-death-penalty folks are harping on. I'm not
familiar enough with the processes to know how easily it is tainted, and
"many years later" is many years someone with an agenda would have to
plant false evidence.
I agree with the "quick" sentiment as well. Once the case (and all the
appeals) is decided, let's get on with it.
> 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
> extreme anti-social behaviour.
>
> Maybe, for some people. Not proven. Certainly, in the old days when
> punishments were harsher, crime did not stop, and people will always do
> irrational things in the heat of the moment. However, there is some evidence
> (based on accounts from prisoners who did not kill their victims) that the
> death penalty is a deterrent to premeditated crime.
In my opinion, whether it's a deterrent or not isn't an issue. It's a
defined punishment for wrong actions. That's what most of the law is -
if one coded it, it would look something like...
if law-was-broken
and guilt-proven
perform mete-out-punishment
end-if
If it happens to have a deterrent effect, that's even better - but where
capital punishment gives you bang for your buck is that your repeat
offender rate is 0%! :)
> 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).
>
> I don't accept that all killing is wrong. Some factions on the planet are
> like a cancer. We have no cure for it, other than to cut it out.
Ah - another ally in the war on terror! :) I would also say that
government is well within its rights, and is executing its duty (no pun
intended), by executing those who have unjustly taken the life of
another man.
> So, there are the explained views of someone who loves his fellow man, is
> far from being a redneck, but who is heartily sick of the outrageous crimes
> we see perpetrated by sick people and fanatics. I believe the death penalty
> can be justifed for crimes of terrorism (yes, I know one man's "terrorist"
> is another's "freedom fighter", but if your cause is just, pursue it
> justly...) and crimes against children.
This is what I find really interesting. My worldview is based in the
Bible, yours is based outside. Yet logical, rational, thinking people
both arrive at the same conclusions.
> It has been interesting to me to see the attempt to reconcile a Commandment
> from God with the need for punishment in a modern society.
>
> Doc says it hinges around the word "murder". King James' translators didn't
> see it that way.
Strangely enough, the KJV does use the word "murder" 9 times, but Exodus
20:13 isn't one of them. Other translations did use that term there.
King James Version - "Thou shalt not kill."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...20:13&version=9
New International Version - "You shall not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=31;
New King James Version - "You shall not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=50;
Holman Christian Standard Bible - "Do not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=77;
> If, as Doc says, the original is two words, with one of them conveying the
> idea of "no", then it would be necessary to understand the original language
> and the customs of the people who used it (just as it is when learning any
> "foreign" language) before reaching a conclusion. There are wide differences
> in meaning between "murder" and "kill".
Context could be of some assistance. Exodus 20 is the Ten Commandments,
which Moses received on the mountain. When he came down, the people had
created a golden calf and were worshipping it. The Lord commanded that
the calf be ground down, mixed in water, and those who had been
worshipping it made to drink the water. Many got sick, and many died.
This happened just after He gave the order that the folks back in 1611
translated as "Thou shalt not kill."
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <aAHud.6321$ZP5.1638@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> Is that where everyone obtains their absentee ballots, then?
I covered that below... :)
>
> So what you're saying is that those who already have computers are spared
> going to a voting-place... what a difference that would be, sure.
But it doesn't disenfranchise the folks who still have to go.
Motor-Voter lets you register to vote when you get or renew your
driver's license - does that disenfranchise those who do not drive?
>
> That was never argued, what was argued was the franchise being limited to
> those with ability to use computers and access to them.
It could be made to work. Personally, I think using "the web" for a
government vote is terrible. How do you establish identity? How do you
prevent ballot-box stuffing? Heck, we can't even have web log awards
without folks being unfair about it. ;) I'm not saying I believe the
government should hold a "for real" vote like a website poll.
>
> That was never argued, at least by me.
Just above, you had said that you found my argument to be that which
folks use when they want votes of a particular type excluded from the
ballot box. I was defending against that.
This brings up another concept which I find insane - "voter intent".
"Oh, I voted for Buchannan, but I *meant* to vote for Gore." Well, if
they meant to vote for Gore, then that's what they should have done.
What's to stop Kerry from saying, "Oh, about 70,000 of those folks up
there in Ohio voted for Bush, but they meant to vote for me - let's just
go ahead and switch those votes"?
>
> Such a silly notion, certainly... it just makes you want to stop casting
> yours, doesn't it?
No - I cast it just in case it's needed. If the margin of victory on
all measures of a ballot is such that absentee ballots, by their volume,
could not change the outcome, they are not "counted". It saves
taxpayers money, and it's fine with me. Judging from the results from
Hamilton County, TN (where I voted), I'm pretty sure that my vote wasn't
counted this year.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Richard 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| > My worldview is based in the Bible, yours is based outside.
By 'outside', I presume that you really wanted to avoid saying that his
worldview is based 'on the _world_'.
| |
| Donald Tees 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> In article <jmDwd.27901$%p1.1824362@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Cute idea. The FARC are well known for blowing up the Judges who
> preside over those courts.
>
So you are esposing that police just shoot everyone they think might be
guilty? BTW, I was infering a world court.
Donald
| |
| Donald Tees 2004-12-17, 3:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Dec-2004, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If you *know* you're right and the establishment (laws and courts) are wrong -
> because God told you so, why would you listen to laws and courts?
>
> Or even if God didn't tell you so - George Washington wasn't satisfied with laws
> and courts.
Because their backed up by police?
You seem to be envisioning a system of law for the united states, and a
president that acts as judge, jury, executioner, etc. outside the
states. Is that the basic idea? The USA (executive branch only) is the
absolute power outside the US, acting on whatever the president decides?
Donald
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 13-Dec-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> What law prevents the indiscriminate killing of plants? :)
There are some plants and more animals that are protected by law.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 13-Dec-2004, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Just taking your last comment - how does society, using thought
> processes, arrive at a consensus ? Certainly not by just figuring out
> PI or Emc2 squared., or whether water disappears down the sink in a
> leftwards or right-hand circular motion.
Most of these laws are similar - regardless of whether they are in a
predominately Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever religion state.
Maybe it isn't the religion that is the source of people's acceptance of what is
unacceptable.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 13-Dec-2004, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Modern technology makes it possible for a small group of people to destroy
> large numbers of people. (I agree that this hasn't happened to any large
> extent, but I hope you'd agree that the possibility is there.)
The people of Carthage must be glad that the Romans only had primitive weapons
as they killed them all and destroyed their land.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1102828232.784394.5820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> The covenant is a vital part of the Jewish peoples, it is the
> foundation of their religion and their nation. The commandments are
> part of the deal that gave them dominion over the land they claim as
> theirs.
>
> Of course I believe that the convenant was with the local warlord named
> or titled Jehovah (or similar), and thus was only applicable as long as
> that regime existed.
>
>
I read your previous post when we were all giving summaries of our views,
Richard. It was interesting. It is hard to confirm one way or the other but
it has the FEEL that it COULD be so. I like your idea of a local warlord.
Certainly, SOMETHING pretty powerful must have been required to motivate an
obscure hill tribe into becoming the Jewish nation.
Not sure if it is fair to say the covenant had a "limited lifetime".
Agreements have been made before in history that were intended to be in
perpetuity, long after the people who made them were dust... It becomes an
oral tradition, then a custom, then part of the religion or the Law,
depending on the people.
Pete.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:1102828232.784394.5820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>I read your previous post when we were all giving summaries of our views,
>Richard. It was interesting. It is hard to confirm one way or the other but
>it has the FEEL that it COULD be so. I like your idea of a local warlord.
>Certainly, SOMETHING pretty powerful must have been required to motivate an
>obscure hill tribe into becoming the Jewish nation.
>
>Not sure if it is fair to say the covenant had a "limited lifetime".
>Agreements have been made before in history that were intended to be in
>perpetuity, long after the people who made them were dust... It becomes an
>oral tradition, then a custom, then part of the religion or the Law,
>depending on the people.
>
>Pete.
>
>
>
>
>
Now here's an interesting bit of 'trivia' relating to the Jewish people
- I wonder how many others like me weren't aware of this.
I was channel surfing looking for something actually decent to watch,
and came across our Inter-Faith channel, Christians, Jews, Muslims,
Sikhs, Hindus etc..... Four rabbis were interviewed individually and
each separately explained consistently how Jewishness exists.
You can be a Jew and an Aetheist. Uhhh ?
Jewishness, unlike the predominance in the Western world of male
inheritance, flows from the mother. If you have a Jewish mother and grow
up and become an Aetheist, then you are still a Jew. (Not explained -
but what happens if dad is a Jew and mum is an aetheist ? Guess the
answer to that one has to be, that you are a goy who is an aetheist ).
Perhaps Dan Brown was on the right track about Mary Magdalene in 'The da
Vinci Code' :-)
Jimmy
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 17-Dec-2004, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Because their backed up by police?
>
> You seem to be envisioning a system of law for the united states, and a
> president that acts as judge, jury, executioner, etc. outside the
> states. Is that the basic idea? The USA (executive branch only) is the
> absolute power outside the US, acting on whatever the president decides?
Huh? I was telling you why people who war against the system aren't willing to
accept what the laws and judges that are part of the establishment tell them.
I don't see any relationship at all between what I said and what you inferred.
None at all.
| |
| Donald Tees 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 13-Dec-2004, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Most of these laws are similar - regardless of whether they are in a
> predominately Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever religion state.
>
> Maybe it isn't the religion that is the source of people's acceptance of what is
> unacceptable.
Fish, pack animals, herds, birds, etc., all have social mores. I think
it rather naive to think it has much to do with religion.
Donald
| |
|
| Richard wrote:
>
>
> By 'outside', I presume that you really wanted to avoid saying that his
> worldview is based 'on the _world_'.
His worldview, as mine, is based on the learning and experience of his
life up until this point. His life, from what he's said here, was not
greatly shaped by the Bible.
Defining a world view by looking at the world seems to me to be like
defining a word by itself, which I was taught was something that should
be avoided.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <us0vd.6810$ZP5.6332@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure what direction you are attempting to take this to... are you
> saying, then, that current polling-places and the controls associated
> therewith should be replaced by web-access voting and busses for those who
> do not have said access?
HECK NO! :) I covered that later in my previous post. What I'm saying
is that IF it were set up that way, it would be no tougher than having a
public polling place.
>
> That depends on the kind of access available to such a place.
My point was that making it easier for a segment of the population to
vote is not the same as disenfranchising the rest of them.
>
> Good of you to come to that conclusion, aye.
Reminds me of the seminar with a bunch of CEOs. The speaker said "Okay,
we're all on an airplane. Just before the doors close, the pilot comes
on the speaker and says that the software for the plane was programmed
by your firm. How many of you would get off the plane?" Every hand in
the place went up, save one. The speaker asked him "You're that
confident of your programmers?" The man replied, "No - if it were
programmed by my firm, it'll never get off the ground."
As a programmer of computers, I'm quite distrustful of them. :)
>
> Good... you might address that in another thread.
heh...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Donald Tees 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Dec-2004, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Huh? I was telling you why people who war against the system aren't willing to
> accept what the laws and judges that are part of the establishment tell them.
> I don't see any relationship at all between what I said and what you inferred.
> None at all.
Then you are probably talking about a non-existant group. Most people in
the world are looking for a set of laws that actually work, not a
complete void.
Only the Bush administration has gone in favour of a complete absence of
law, and he only asks it for himself, and only outside the US.
Donald
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:cg0vd.6726$ZP5.5891@fe40.usenetserver.com...
>
> They made no attempt to return fire? (perhaps they were unarmed at the
> time?)
Yes - they were running, exercising. It's not the best thing to go for
a jog with a loaded weapon... :) I believe that after that they did
amend their exercise path so they weren't so close to the fence.
>
> Modern weapons require such bravery, don't they? It isn't like the old days
> when you had to look at the face of an enemy as you killed him, close up and
> personal. The sanitization of war is partly responsible for the increase in
> it. Any idiot can unthinkingly follow orders and push a button, destroying
> dozens of people hundreds of miles away.
I don't think the change is necessarily worse. Having the battlefield
"prepared" (or, as Gen Schwartzkopf said, "We didn't prepare the
battlefield, we destroyed it") makes it a lot easier for the ground
troop, doing the hand-to-hand stuff. And, in Afghanistan and Fallujah,
air power has been of negligible benefit, aside from the transport
aspects of it. Ground warfare isn't a lost art.
> It was interesting to me that when we did our basic military training, we
> were not required to do the famous bayonet drill (screaming and yelling as
> you stab straw men to death). I asked why this was, and the response was
> profound: "The NZ Army has decided that such drills are degrading to the
> soldier and serve no useful purpose. If you are ever in a situation where
> you need to use a bayonet, you will not require training. You will certainly
> be trained in how to attach it quickly." Given that our forces seem to enjoy
> a good reputation in military circles, the policy appears to have had no
> deleterious effect.
Hmmm - seems like they would have kept that in BMT just for the stress
relief aspects. :)
>
> Not sure. I am uninformed on this.
Every so often, someone comes up with "new DNA evidence" which purports
to absolve some person on death row. Usually, they're in a state that
discontinued capital punishment, so the person is still alive. I'm not
as informed on the details as I'd like, but it just strikes me as a bit
strange, especially with evidence that somewhat routinely (again, not
sure of the exact statistic) gets thrown out of court for being tainted
or obtained illegally.
>
> When I manage projects I strive for a "blame free" culture. It is the same
> principle. Someone goofed off; make sure they won't ever do so again, not by
> punishment but by getting them to take the responsibility for the effect of
> their actions. Then it becomes a learning process. It has to be "safe" to
> get it wrong occasionally.
Certain things, yes. But, if someone maliciously worked outside the
configuration management system to place a backdoor into bank software
that allowed them to hack in and look at everyone's account numbers, ATM
PINs, and balances; then this is caught because the program has to be
opened up again, and the new programmer finds this odd code - would they
get a second chance? I don't think I'd give them one. Some offenses,
IMO, are a once-and-you're-out deal.
>
> I'll amend your code as follows:
>
> if law-was-broken
> and guilt-proven
> if NO | | |