theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, You are assuming, Hugo, that I have given favour to one side or the other. Just because I pointed out the mechanisms of 'rights', doesn't mean that I wouldn't choose otherwise given the chance. In fact, I do every day. Nonsense, it would have equal validity on par with any 'right'. Some people were selling plots on the moon years ago...who 'owns' it? I laid claim to it years ago in an argument with another friend of mine, (when we were both about 9 or 10) but can this make it mine? Do I have to go invade and stick a flag in it to 'own it'?

Dear August1991, It is my contention that a gov't, in some form, is absolutely vital IF one desires to live other than a 'subsistence-farming hermit with a nuclear arsenal'. I believe that it would be an impossibility to have effective and safe interaction between 30 million 'nations of one'.

Dear Argus, I didn't mention these two because they were on the list...but I agree that they are tops...I voted for kimmy...love that rapier wit...

Dear PocketRocket, Indeed, Stompin Tom was our 'multi-cultural ambassador', with the song "Sudbury Saturday Night"...'The girls are off to bingo, and the boys are gettin' stinko....there's happy German Fritzie, and ol' Frenchie's gettin' tipsy....

Happy Canada Day! kimmy, I thought this was compulsory.... I thought the 'exploding latrine gag' went out with M*A*SH*... glad to see you included our MP's in the celebration! It's too far for me to go, though... that is just wrong...I'll stick to just 'breaking wind' downtown...Thanks for the encouragement...no finer place than Canada!

Dear Big Blue Machine, Not to worry. The two most intelligent posters (IMV), Black Dog and Hugo, are also not on the list. Other 'quality posters, such as PocketRocket, and eureka, both of whom I have much respect for, were also overlooked. And then there's lil 'ol me...*sniff*

Dear Hugo, Sparhawk raises a very good point. Market forces would dictate that you could be successful if you have less people die than your competitor. You seem to think that if a soldier kills a person, it is state-sponsored tyranny, yet you seem have no qualms about it if companies and 'market forces' do the killing, and having their only punishment as lower sales.

Dear Hugo, No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere.

Dear Hugo, Abuse of power is always a bad thing. Do you ever see any good in the use of gov't power though?

Dear Hugo, Incorrect. People either moving around other people or endlessly negotiating easement rights (with no enforcable set standard) that may differ from day to day, etc, etc...So, ultimately, it would be people moving around as others saw fit.

Dear Argus, No, you should ignore that BS.

Dear daniel and shakeyhands, Best to ignore posters that cannot post anything related to a topic and only use vitriolic criticisms as their stance. While I am a fan of one-line zingers, at least kimmy and Black Dog have got the brains to be funny about it.The problem is, comments like this are quite seriously, trolling. Nothing of substance, just kindergarten-level insults. If they were funny, or showed even the slightest bit of irony or sarcastic wit, it might be a different story. Instead, it wastes everyone's time and detracts from and derails any discussion of the actual topic.

Dear Hugo, You might indeed point that out, but it would have been a pretty lame approach to an argument. 'If', in this context, is just far too big a word. No. It was a battle between A and B, and the only difference between them is the rights that they are carrying with them, and which ones they are going to bestow upon you once the dust settles. In this case, the two wrongs can't make a 'right', only the winner can. Most times. It means that they'll win or lose.

Dear August1991, Not entirely accurate, I'm afraid. In 1932, Hitler was soundly beaten by Hindenburg for president., but the Nazis had won 230 seats, making them the largest party in Germany. Hindenburg offered Hitler the vice-chancellorship under Franz Von Papen, but Hitler refused, as he wanted the Chancellorship or nothing. Then in a second Riechstag election, the Nazis suffered a set back, winning only 196 seats. Thinking that the Nazi influence was ebbing, and also thinking that this made them less dangerous, Hindenburg again approached Hitler and offered the Chancellorship. Hitler wanted extra sweeping powers with it, so again, no deal was struck. In Jan. 1933, Hitler was again offered the chancellorship, and this time he grabbed it.After having convinced Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call fresh elections, Hitler (and Goering, Minister of the interior for Prussia) did resort to violence and propaganda (though, so did the communists) and came out with a clear majority. Hitler banned the Communist party, but did not do so until after the elections, in order to split the left-wing vote. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler announced that there would be no election for a replacement, and that he would unite the offices of President and Chancellor. In a referendum over Hitler's new status, 38 million voted for, and just 4 million against, having a dictator run the country. Source of info...Paraphrased from "The Reader's Digest Guide to World War II" (1989)

IMR, Good point here. If churches don't wish to have the ceremony in their building they shouldn't have to. As Black Dog points out, Black Dog also raises a very valid point with... More headaches and paperwork than it's worth, I should think.I am, admittedly, a bit confused on this whole issue. Is it just the name 'marriage' that the church has issue with? My wife and I got married about 6 years ago, 'JP style'. No bible, no religion, but we went to the registry office and were issued a 'marriage certificate'. I don't see why a gay couple cannot do the same thing. If it is the word 'marriage' that the church doesn't want to share with same-sex couples, then they should have to prove a 'copyright infringement' on it.

Dear Hugo, Actually, Australia and South Africa did not. Canada only did so in Nov. 1944 (that is, enact conscription for service overseas), after a bitter parlimentary debate. Australia only had compulsory service for the home militia, and only volunteers went to fight.Interesting though, that you seem to have a hatred for the military, no matter the country, (though Switzerland and Sweden have 'civilian militias' that aren't a standing army, yet would 'uphold national law' if asked) yet it was only they who could have stopped the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis. I'll agree, it was evil of the Nazis to do such a thing, but you seem to say that it was equally evil of the Allies to stop them. Dare I ask for a clarification?

Dear August1991, My favoured example is Liberia. (in the African motif) From the World Human Rights Guide by Charles Humana (1986):FACTORS AFFECTING HUMAN RIGHTS An army sergeant and sixteen colleagues seized power in 1980, killing most of the previous government. The new rulers, the People's Redemption Council, have 'embarked upon a programme of national reconciliation and reconstruction'. After five years of rule, however, public executions and floggings of opponents still take place, detentions without charge are numerous, and torture commonplace. Promised elections took place in October 1985 which returned the president in a fraudulent poll. An abortive uprising followed the elections with deaths estimated at 500. The USA is a major supporter of the regime, with large investments in the country. (I added the bold type)

Dear Hugo, Sixteen pails of buffalo snot. Thank you Hugo, this is what I was trying to explain. Yet the buddhists say that getting 'nothingness' is the goal. That is why I say that they are wrong. 'Not being' is the absence of everything, including a goal or reward. Again, 'being' means being surrounded on all boundaries by 'not being' (or, 'nothing', or if you like , an infinite number of things that do not be, in the same place at the same time, such as sixteen pails of buffalo snot)I think, personally, that the profundity of Siddhartha's encounter with a sick, a dying, and a dead man tainted as well as enlightened. He claims that the goal achieved by 'not being' is the end of suffering. But you get that anyway.

Dear Hugo, I speak of the attempt, not the success or failure. We could also say that the failure is universal, for to the best of human knowledge, all things change or die. The only exception, I hope, would be existence itself. All things are surrounded by an infinite amount of things that do not be, or in other words, surrounded by nothing. So, all things will either join infinite not being, or strive to remain within the boundaries of being. 'Not being', therefore, cannot be a goal, as it represents no achievement or reward.

Dear Hugo, No, I don't say that, and perhaps this is the source of the confusion. I do not use the criteria of success as 'proof'. I am saying the absolute universality of the attempt is the proof. (suicide be damned, it is a cognitive choice, usually made of despair and mental defect) It'll have to be later, but yes, static.

Dear Hugo, Without evolution, or the need for it, the implication would be that everything is already perfect. Then there would be no need to 'try'. Yet all things try 'to be, more efficiently'. This, however, is immensely influenced by environment. (Humans have tainted the natural course of things, and we see some 'evolution' or adaptation occuring to cope with the changes to environment that mankind himself has created)Nature is fragile and fallible. What does live on, however, and what encompasses all existence, is the 'will to be'. That doesn't mean that the ability or the favourable environment is there, and some 'experiments' don't work. That is the test. The end goal is 'to be', (or should I say 'to be, for eternity') and nature and humans experiment. Any scientific test is deemed successful if it produces the desired results, consistently. If the Buddhists believe that the goal is 'not to be', and that one is subject to reincarnation until one achieves perfection, what are the standards that they apply to 'getting it right'? The only thing in common with all things is 'being', (if one were reincarnated as a radish or a yak, for example) so 'being' is the only common 'means test'.

Dear Melanie, Evidently, Stevie Nicks (from the band Fleetwood Mac) had 5 abortions because of conflicts with her touring schedule. Mind you, she was a cocaine addict for many years, so perhaps it was for the best. I believe it should always be the woman's choice, however. As an adopted child myself, I am a firm believer that there are always options to be explored, but none should be by force.

Dear Hugo, Finding quotes proved to be a formidible task. I do believe that you had edited the latter post (If I recall, it was only a few minutes after the original post, which is something I also do, as I tend to re-read them only after I post them) and added the clarification that all slavery was coersion and therefore wrong. Perhaps this is what I was thinking of. At the time that I read it, the context gave me the impression that the only thing you had against slavery was that it was economically archaic.

Dear Hugo, This is simply a by-product of 'right's theory'. You had agreed that the defence of 'rights' can justify the use of overwhelming force (strictly in the defensive, of course) and that is what the theory of 'soldiering' is. He has the job of defending you right to not have Nazis come and take your 'property', up to and including you life, though not at this moment.

Dear Terrible Sweal, I don't like this question. What do you mean 'good'? Is it 'as opposed to' evil, or bad? Making choices contrary to your goal is 'bad', but it is also 'nuts'.