Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
My next door neighbor doesn't know the difference between lose and loose. I need you to step in and explain to him why he shouldn't call other people idiots. ;)


ah you took the bait. But maybe somebody will come along and put their wallet on the table for you too.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So do liberals on the other hand want to promote open and free sex and encourage the killing of as many babies possible. Thus they can teach that no one is responsible for themselves? What exactly should this message of enlightenment be?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
LunarRay: Moonbeam The opening para of your OP seems to place under an umbrella a variety of issues that under law are unique to the individual but not to the folks who are looking into the 'fish bowl' and deciding how this or that issue affects them. The viewer almost always has the same attitude when reading the opinion of the SCOTUS. Ultimately it is SCOTUS that decides what society in general follow - but not always agree with - and the reasons why. I have yet to read an opinion of SCOTUS that used the term 'God' or any of his/her demands or subsequent interpretations as a reason for their opinions. Furthermore, regardless of what was in the mind of the creators of our Constitution or their belief in a God it is the mind of the folks deciding what the words of the Constitution mean and how they apply to us that matters.

M: And I guess it this is still true when a justice attempts to apply his opinion of original intent. It is still his interpretation and his opinion. The actual intent and how even that intent would express today, died with the founding fathers. This, of course, opens the doors for schools of legal thought that, because they are just guesses, are like mini religions.

LR: So... How does the above respond to the gist of the OP?... Well... It seems to me that folks have yet to separate the Law of the Constitution from the Law of Moses, et. al. Some have the misguided opinion that the Kingdom of Heaven is here on earth and actually exactly within the boundaries of the USA. It seems to me that folks who are the loudest voices on what ought to be are quite happy to leave out quite a few folks who also live in the USA...

IOW, the deeper the religious conviction one has the more they want to force that belief on everyone else when, as I see it, religion is personal between the person and their belief and it is a conduit that does NOT extend beyond them and their belief.

M: This involves what I refer to as the grafting of a group idolized external conformity, a group think, on a child to give him or her the security of belonging as opposed to the worthless little asshole he would be if he deviates by aligning himself with the devil. It is what we do when punishment and put downs convince us of the utter worthlessness of who we really are and the value of becoming a religious psychopath. Now everything we do we do with the authority of God. We can never be wrong again.

And the result, of course, is that everybody who is different is also dangerous and needs to be converted. Different and evil are one and the same thing.

LR: Why do folks wish to extend their religion down the throat of everyone? Cuz they grasp for justification but also and more so a need... a great need that religion sates. Even Patton ordered prayers to help defeat the Germans on his road to victory... "By the grace of God we shall prevail", some say... and "if God is on our side it can't be wrong"... but it is what motivates that remains the mystery... each has their unique little issue that they can't or refuse to touch... they simply occupy their mind with something that controls their motivations without ever seeing how it might be something other than God. That it might be them is seen as an attack of the Devil. Bigotry and its awful hate is disguised as a Godly endeavor... among other nifty 'attacks'.

M: Hehe, if I had read ahead I could have saved my previous segment. The danger, of course, is that the fear and hatred of evil that was forced down the throats of children by the religiously sick, is what comes back up when they come for you. The Spanish Inquisition is merely a reflection of what happened to us in childhood. We were born defenseless and loving toward our parents, and they murdered us to save us from evil. When you have no defense, the pain you feel is all the pain a human can feel. It's re-experiencing that that is the root of terror, the thing we would rather die or kill than feel.

LR: Abortion, for example, under God is wrong and a sin but under law 'Roe' prevails and there it is... The law must be wrong until they themselves undergo an abortion... but they can now ask for forgiveness or some such... It is ok to do it so long as you ask for forgiveness... from God.

M: The great problem here, of course, is that there is a big difference between a belief that you will be forgiven and actually feeling it. The first provides self delusional justification and the second emotional healing. In the case of the first the ego is unaffected or magnified and in the second the ego dies. This is why the meek figure so strongly with Jesus. They had so much less a journey to find God. They are already effectively dead.


LR: EDIT: Moonster... IF God is within the individual imagine the problem with asking oneself to forgive oneself for doing what one knows to be wrong... fast to the rubber room, I presume...

M: Hehehehehe Having some experience with a rubber room, entered, let me quickly add, on my own volition, I can tell you it's just the place to feel what you feel. The conviction that one is worthless runs very deep. Those who find their way to forgiveness though God require tremendous faith to overcome their negative feelings and those in a rubber room still find it hard to get to them.

But I can think of no better way to broadcast to the masses some inklings of real truth than via religion. Unfortunately, no matter how enlightened a teacher is, his truth dies with him and is quickly turned in to corruption by the infection I call self hate. But even today after 2000 years folk can still get a sense of 'something peculiar' about Jesus. Like always calls to like.

God is within and whether he is out there or in here makes not the slightest difference because he is surely in one or the other or both places. This is why, I think, a Christian mystic once said, "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which He sees me. And I think the way you see God is when the duality of the universe created by language collapses in the unity of Love. I am the Universe when the I that I was taught is me disappears leaving only perfect reflection.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
CycloWizard: Many people will do whatever they can get away with. The kids in college now have been told their entire lives that nothing they do is their fault. The system of "compassion" you and Moonbeam preach is the driving force for their inability to behave in a responsible manner.

M: I do not know what system of compassion Icepick does or does not espouse, but the 'system' I speak of has nothing to do with compassion. You live, in my opinion, in a world of delusion where free willed beings are running around, some exercising responsibility and some not, whereas I see a world inhabited only by machines. You have the delusion that you are a fee agent but because you are not conscious of what you feel and are thus motivated by forces you don't understand, you are effectively asleep. That, however, does not flatter your ego which is built of the illusion that you are a responsible being who deserves all the praise that goes with such.

Furthermore, it is you who are responsible for the irresponsibility of youth today, not me. You and your ilk created a world of responsible morality and shoved it on your kids, making them feel worthless if they couldn't achieve. You made them hate themselves and created a culture where other fools would try to step in to fix it. All these poor self hating zombies you responsibility quacks created bully other kids prompting other idiots to step in and try to make them feel good. Your kind made folk feel bad and now you kick those too blind to know how to help but see what the problem is, low self esteem. And you blame others precisely because you are at fault yourself, at fault, that is as a causative agent, not as a responsible one. You and the fools you create are not at fault because you are all asleep, zombies if you will.

CW: No one almost kills me when they hand in an assignment late. If someone is perfectly willing to roll the dice and kill someone in order to tweet while driving, is it wrong to remove that person from society?

M: There you go again, they rolled the dice. They did what they did because they are asleep. You can't blame a machine. It may be perfectly alright, however, to remove such a person from society if they fail in the future to exercise better self reflection. We can remove them but we can't assign no personal blame. They are poorly programmed machines.

Judge not because you are also a zombie. You are also mindless because you do not know what you feel. Your only claim to fame is that you conform to to ethical ideals that flatter your ego and look down on those who do not.

CW: The same driver almost hit a pedestrian who had just cleared her lane of traffic. If the student had hit him at 40 mph, he would surely have been maimed or died. It's interesting that you demonize me rather than the other driver, a reckless zombie who has no regard for the lives of others as evidenced by actions.

M: As you can see, it is the demonetization that is at the root of human mental illness. Neither you with your machine opinions or her with her machine actions are demons. It is just sleep, an unawareness of what you feel.

CW: I've never heard anyone cry out in dismay when zombies are shotgunned by the thousands in movies. What is a zombie but a human mindlessly killing other humans?

M: You forgot to add 'or a human who mindlessly teaches other people they are worthless when they act irresponsibly'.

CW: The difference is that I know it's not my job to be judge, jury, and executioner. I didn't get out of my car and kick the student in the face. I made a personal decision to extend unwarranted compassion to the zombie. I called the cops. The cops are there to enforce the law because something as nebulous as compassion cannot be enforced, much less institutionalized. Relying on compassion to run society is resulting in the zombie apocalypse as we speak.

M: Hehehe, When you see that people are asleep you can have compassion for them but that changes nothing except elimination all the insane moral indignation that you feel. Those who prove to be reckless and dangerous to others have to be prevented from doing so. Punishment will only make them worse, but they simply can't be allowed to continue to harm others. They have to be stopped and they should be treated, but by whom, I cannot say. How do machines that sleep awaken other sleeping machines?

CW: Some of you don't seem to realize the reason government exists. It is to ensure rights of its citizens. Specifically, rights to life, liberty, and property. It's not to make its citizens feel all warm and fuzzy. It's not to tell them "Don't sweat it" when they almost kill someone out of complete negligence. In this case, my rights were violated and the other party is skating away while I foot the bill. Anyone defending the student has no concept of what rights are or the purpose of government and is effectively enabling these shenanigans.

M: Your self hate makes you toe the line. You were programmed to act with what you call responsibility. You hate others who do not have your conditioning and you do not want them to get well as you do not want to get well yourself. To you any attempt, fools attempts included, to make folk feel better means giving them an excuse for irrational behavior. The truth could not be farther from that. People who like themselves act with real responsibility, responsibility that comes from within, that is natural and unforced. But the idea that you can tell a person with deep self hate that what he does is OK is absurd just as you say. It is all that folk who see the damage done by low self-esteem can see to do, because they too do not want to feel what they really feel.

The truth is always some third way, in this case, understanding that self hate is at the core of everything and that is is very difficult to cure. In a culture that judges folk too much it is better if that moves the other way, but a culture that accepts to much shit needs to move back. The third way is to understand the fulcrum from which all this swings and treat the real cause. That means that the battle begins with self awakening.

CW: You can call me heartless or whatever you want, but if government isn't going to secure my rights, then I will have to. This is not a joke. I guess this guy should have made tea for the guys invading his home with assault rifles in the middle of the night? Maybe he can compassion them into submission when other guys return and shoot up his house?[/QUOTE]

M: Haven't looked at the links.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
FoBoT: you completely ignored my point that intent , ie willingness or lack thereof, is important

M: Important how?


F: i'll take that to mean you don't care if people want to serve (help) or not, you only care about the end, not the means to the end

M: Me, I care but Republicans do not. They mandated that hospitals care for folk whether they want to or not and whether they can pay or not. Some of my ideas come from really smart people.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
marvdmartian: You're over-thinking it, Moonbeam.

How about, some people would rather see parents teach (and society support) their children how to be responsible adults, instead of teaching them that life is full of "re-do's"?

M: I used to have a lot of kids but they all fell in a well in my back yard. Sink or swim, I say. No re-do's

m: How about we teach kids to be responsible for their actions, instead of bailing them out every time they make a mistake, so they never learn from their mistakes?

M: Yo mean like good republican, Zimmerman's dad?

m: How about we teach that life is precious, every day is a gift, and to carelessly throw away life is wrong? And to do so because it's inconvenient to your poorly thought out life plans is wrong in so many more ways??

M: A Hippie attitude is fine for you and your kids but flowers in my hair never got me a cup of coffee. Lots of sex, but no coffee.

m: Life didn't hand you a "re-do" button, so stop acting like it did. :rolleyes:

M: You're underthinking it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
So do liberals on the other hand want to promote open and free sex and encourage the killing of as many babies possible. Thus they can teach that no one is responsible for themselves? What exactly should this message of enlightenment be?

I will let you know as soon as I become enlightened. I hope you will return the favor. I can definitely tell you, however, that while I'm not a liberal I don't think free sex and killing babies is the right answer.

My own thinking runs along the lines that young people, released from their home cages tend to go crazy with their new found liberty and experiment in many directions, and driven, I need to add, by unconscious repressed feelings, namely a lack of a center within themselves that makes them feel good, and thus a seeking in all directions for something to make them feel loved. Sex and babies are good for that till a different reality hits home.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
Why would you execute the offspring for the crime of the parent?

Because you don't want to carry it to term. Alternately, if you wanted the baby there's no way in hell it should be aborted by law. It's the woman's choice and nobody else's
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Because you don't want to carry it to term. Alternately, if you wanted the baby there's no way in hell it should be aborted by law. It's the woman's choice and nobody else's

So it is ok to execute the offspring for the crimes committed by the father if the offspring is unwanted?
 

Onceler

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,262
0
71
Because you don't want to carry it to term. Alternately, if you wanted the baby there's no way in hell it should be aborted by law. It's the woman's choice and nobody else's

No it should be aborted regardless of the potential mother's wishes.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Of course. The Supreme Court says so. Your opinion is of no importance.

I did not ask if it is LEGAL, I asked if it was OK. Something being legal and something being OK are not always the same thing (often times they are not).

For example, rephrasing what the Jewish Anti-defamation League said about the Ground Zero Victory Mosque:

We support the right to build the mosque there, however just because you have the right to do something does not make it right to do it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
cybrsage: I did not ask if it is LEGAL, I asked if it was OK. Something being legal and something being OK are not always the same thing (often times they are not).

M: Why? If something is legal it is legal. What do you mean by OK. If it's legal it's OK according to the law. What other kind of OK is of any relevance.

Surely you can see that you are placing your emotional reactions, which are mostly unconscious and which you therefore don't even understand above the legal opinion of a secular state.

c: For example, rephrasing what the Jewish Anti-defamation League said about the Ground Zero Victory Mosque:

We support the right to build the mosque there, however just because you have the right to do something does not make it right to do it.

M: Building the mosque at ground zero was OK by me. It was legal and showed that folk or real Islamic faith oppose the killing of innocent people. The opinion of the Jewish Anti-defamation League is in my opinion just bigotry and worse. The reason we have separation of church and state is because religious folk and atheists are insane. They want to impose their views on others and don't every realize what they are doing, just as you felt it's not OK to build a Mosque because a lot of people are crazy. We can't even keep our freedom because the politicians pander to the crazies and do what they want. You live in a sick world, my friend, and you can either add to it or subtract from it.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
CycloWizard: Many people will do whatever they can get away with. The kids in college now have been told their entire lives that nothing they do is their fault. The system of "compassion" you and Moonbeam preach is the driving force for their inability to behave in a responsible manner.

M: I do not know what system of compassion Icepick does or does not espouse, but the 'system' I speak of has nothing to do with compassion. You live, in my opinion, in a world of delusion where free willed beings are running around, some exercising responsibility and some not, whereas I see a world inhabited only by machines. You have the delusion that you are a fee agent but because you are not conscious of what you feel and are thus motivated by forces you don't understand, you are effectively asleep. That, however, does not flatter your ego which is built of the illusion that you are a responsible being who deserves all the praise that goes with such.

Furthermore, it is you who are responsible for the irresponsibility of youth today, not me. You and your ilk created a world of responsible morality and shoved it on your kids, making them feel worthless if they couldn't achieve. You made them hate themselves and created a culture where other fools would try to step in to fix it. All these poor self hating zombies you responsibility quacks created bully other kids prompting other idiots to step in and try to make them feel good. Your kind made folk feel bad and now you kick those too blind to know how to help but see what the problem is, low self esteem. And you blame others precisely because you are at fault yourself, at fault, that is as a causative agent, not as a responsible one. You and the fools you create are not at fault because you are all asleep, zombies if you will.

CW: No one almost kills me when they hand in an assignment late. If someone is perfectly willing to roll the dice and kill someone in order to tweet while driving, is it wrong to remove that person from society?

M: There you go again, they rolled the dice. They did what they did because they are asleep. You can't blame a machine. It may be perfectly alright, however, to remove such a person from society if they fail in the future to exercise better self reflection. We can remove them but we can't assign no personal blame. They are poorly programmed machines.

Judge not because you are also a zombie. You are also mindless because you do not know what you feel. Your only claim to fame is that you conform to to ethical ideals that flatter your ego and look down on those who do not.

CW: The same driver almost hit a pedestrian who had just cleared her lane of traffic. If the student had hit him at 40 mph, he would surely have been maimed or died. It's interesting that you demonize me rather than the other driver, a reckless zombie who has no regard for the lives of others as evidenced by actions.

M: As you can see, it is the demonetization that is at the root of human mental illness. Neither you with your machine opinions or her with her machine actions are demons. It is just sleep, an unawareness of what you feel.

CW: I've never heard anyone cry out in dismay when zombies are shotgunned by the thousands in movies. What is a zombie but a human mindlessly killing other humans?

M: You forgot to add 'or a human who mindlessly teaches other people they are worthless when they act irresponsibly'.

CW: The difference is that I know it's not my job to be judge, jury, and executioner. I didn't get out of my car and kick the student in the face. I made a personal decision to extend unwarranted compassion to the zombie. I called the cops. The cops are there to enforce the law because something as nebulous as compassion cannot be enforced, much less institutionalized. Relying on compassion to run society is resulting in the zombie apocalypse as we speak.

M: Hehehe, When you see that people are asleep you can have compassion for them but that changes nothing except elimination all the insane moral indignation that you feel. Those who prove to be reckless and dangerous to others have to be prevented from doing so. Punishment will only make them worse, but they simply can't be allowed to continue to harm others. They have to be stopped and they should be treated, but by whom, I cannot say. How do machines that sleep awaken other sleeping machines?

CW: Some of you don't seem to realize the reason government exists. It is to ensure rights of its citizens. Specifically, rights to life, liberty, and property. It's not to make its citizens feel all warm and fuzzy. It's not to tell them "Don't sweat it" when they almost kill someone out of complete negligence. In this case, my rights were violated and the other party is skating away while I foot the bill. Anyone defending the student has no concept of what rights are or the purpose of government and is effectively enabling these shenanigans.

M: Your self hate makes you toe the line. You were programmed to act with what you call responsibility. You hate others who do not have your conditioning and you do not want them to get well as you do not want to get well yourself. To you any attempt, fools attempts included, to make folk feel better means giving them an excuse for irrational behavior. The truth could not be farther from that. People who like themselves act with real responsibility, responsibility that comes from within, that is natural and unforced. But the idea that you can tell a person with deep self hate that what he does is OK is absurd just as you say. It is all that folk who see the damage done by low self-esteem can see to do, because they too do not want to feel what they really feel.

The truth is always some third way, in this case, understanding that self hate is at the core of everything and that is is very difficult to cure. In a culture that judges folk too much it is better if that moves the other way, but a culture that accepts to much shit needs to move back. The third way is to understand the fulcrum from which all this swings and treat the real cause. That means that the battle begins with self awakening.

CW: You can call me heartless or whatever you want, but if government isn't going to secure my rights, then I will have to. This is not a joke. I guess this guy should have made tea for the guys invading his home with assault rifles in the middle of the night? Maybe he can compassion them into submission when other guys return and shoot up his house?

M: Haven't looked at the links.[/QUOTE]
I'll be happy to take all the blame you can heap on me for holding people responsible. In a world where no one is responsible for his or her actions, I am free to go on shooting sprees. I am free to mount a cow catcher on a monster truck and plow through crowded campus sidewalks. I can see why someone would like to think that they are not responsible for their actions, that right and wrong are mythical constructs, and that we're all one big happy family: it's easier to justify your own behaviors this way. However, this is simply the wild west mentality under the guise of liberalism rather than conservatism. If the law won't hold you responsible for your actions because you have reduced the law to a morally relative piece of trash, then I have no recourse but to defend myself using any means necessary. If you are not responsible for your actions, you cannot hold me responsible for mine. Amoral genocide is a stone's throw from where you sit.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
cybrsage: I did not ask if it is LEGAL, I asked if it was OK. Something being legal and something being OK are not always the same thing (often times they are not).

M: Why? If something is legal it is legal. What do you mean by OK. If it's legal it's OK according to the law. What other kind of OK is of any relevance.

Surely you can see that you are placing your emotional reactions, which are mostly unconscious and which you therefore don't even understand above the legal opinion of a secular state.

c: For example, rephrasing what the Jewish Anti-defamation League said about the Ground Zero Victory Mosque:

We support the right to build the mosque there, however just because you have the right to do something does not make it right to do it.

M: Building the mosque at ground zero was OK by me. It was legal and showed that folk or real Islamic faith oppose the killing of innocent people. The opinion of the Jewish Anti-defamation League is in my opinion just bigotry and worse. The reason we have separation of church and state is because religious folk and atheists are insane. They want to impose their views on others and don't every realize what they are doing, just as you felt it's not OK to build a Mosque because a lot of people are crazy. We can't even keep our freedom because the politicians pander to the crazies and do what they want. You live in a sick world, my friend, and you can either add to it or subtract from it.

I am not sure if you are missing the point on purpose or not. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Was slavery right when it was legal?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
I am not sure if you are missing the point on purpose or not. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Was slavery right when it was legal?

Perhaps you are missing the point. I was told that to build a mosque at ground zero was legal but wrong when in fact the feeling it is wrong is a subjective state, a matter of biased opinion. Before we get to the matter of inalienable rights and if such things like truth exist surely we are going to have to understand that a great deal of what we believe is bigoted opinion.

At one time some folk said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...." but they didn't mean women and black people so clearly they didn't really know the mind of their creator as well as they might have thought or perhaps such rights are made up as we go, or even that they don't exist. But if these men, much smarter than me couldn't specify what is true why would you ask me? So let me ask you instead, how do you know slavery is wrong? What we do know is that it is illegal now and therefore not OK, legally speaking. And because of the force of the law isn't that a better state than if it were wrong but legal?

I play a different game, I think, than most people on this forum. I am not here to be right and tell you why. My aim is to provoke people to examine the unconscious assumptions they make as best I can. I think the unconscious assumptions the founding fathers made was that the Union of States was worth the assumption that Black people weren't fully people but it turned out that in many cases Black people were more human than they.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
BTW Moon, it (the mosque) was about 1.5 blocks away and not even in a direct LOS to the site....


Just FYI.....
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Perhaps you are missing the point. I was told that to build a mosque at ground zero was legal but wrong when in fact the feeling it is wrong is a subjective state, a matter of biased opinion. Before we get to the matter of inalienable rights and if such things like truth exist surely we are going to have to understand that a great deal of what we believe is bigoted opinion.

At one time some folk said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...." but they didn't mean women and black people so clearly they didn't really know the mind of their creator as well as they might have thought or perhaps such rights are made up as we go, or even that they don't exist. But if these men, much smarter than me couldn't specify what is true why would you ask me? So let me ask you instead, how do you know slavery is wrong? What we do know is that it is illegal now and therefore not OK, legally speaking. And because of the force of the law isn't that a better state than if it were wrong but legal?

I play a different game, I think, than most people on this forum. I am not here to be right and tell you why. My aim is to provoke people to examine the unconscious assumptions they make as best I can. I think the unconscious assumptions the founding fathers made was that the Union of States was worth the assumption that Black people weren't fully people but it turned out that in many cases Black people were more human than they.
You are failing to examine your own assumptions. You here stated that moral relativism is fine since the law gives a practical, enforceable definition of right and wrong. My argument is simply that when the law is not enforced, even this flimsy definition of what is allowable falls apart. In this thread alone, you and others have stated that this means I am to blame for the actions of other people I have never seen before. This is simply wrong. The law is a poor reflection of objective morality under the best of circumstances. It crosses into the absurd when the law is not upheld as written as there is now no culpability and we have reduced civilization to a free-for-all. It's ironic that many of the most liberal support this anarchist perspective while demonizing the libertarians.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,805
6,775
126
CycloWizard: You are failing to examine your own assumptions. You here stated that moral relativism is fine since the law gives a practical, enforceable definition of right and wrong.

M: Not really. I am saying, as you will somewhat say later in your post here, that law is best attempt at effort at defining morality in some specific area. But the definition of what is moral can't be given in words because morality is the product of a state of mind. Jesus, for example, was the sun of God because he radiated only love so that every one of His actions was perfect. Jesus was fully conscious and had no unconscious motivations. He could not sin by accident in his sleep like you and I can.

CW: My argument is simply that when the law is not enforced, even this flimsy definition of what is allowable falls apart.

M: We are motivated by other emotions than commitment to our ideals.

CW: In this thread alone, you and others have stated that this means I am to blame for the actions of other people I have never seen before. This is simply wrong.

M: Not really. I have merely stated that there is a portion of law that is absurd that you support, the notion that moral responsibility can be furthered by punishment, that consequences make better people. What that does, ultimately is create more emotionally repressed people who will riot the minute law disappears. You are responsible for this potential disaster because you support this myth. Morality comes from love and punishment creates hate. Hate, of course, can only exist as self hate so folk who hate themselves are already in hell. You will get nowhere threatening people in hell with hell.

CW: The law is a poor reflection of objective morality under the best of circumstances.

M: But you understand, I hope, that to make this categorical statement you yourself have to know what real morality is, correct? And that I think puts you in an uncomfortable position. You must surely be a god or a crack pot.

CW: It crosses into the absurd when the law is not upheld as written as there is now no culpability and we have reduced civilization to a free-for-all.

M: When we allow unconscious motivations to pull us away from our highest ideals we create a mess as you say. It is obvious, therefore, at least to me, that the only way out is to become conscious of what we're really up to. I would suggest that throwing people into the middle of the sea will accomplish little along those lines.

CW: It's ironic that many of the most liberal support this anarchist perspective while demonizing the libertarians.

M: I do not support an anarchist position. I simply say that anarchism is our condition. Those who sleep know nothing and have no idea what to do.