theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, I try not to lie, but I may err. I do not believe you made any such statement. If you did, feel free to quote it and post it. I do not doubt that you may have been on that tangent while writing, but it is my contention that you did not convey it. Amen Hugo. 'Realizing something in the mind', does that make it so? 'Discovery of the metaphysical'? I again ask you to show me one. I believe you can show me how one concieves of it, and I believe it will have a basic chemical formula, but then again, so too does God exist there.

Dear Black Dog, Then pick one up and show them to me. Even just one. The 'pretzel-like twisting' you both seem to find amusing was Hugo's attempt to twist pragmatism into someone declaring support and 'rah-rahing' the Nazi genocide of Jews. I was actually quite surprised that Hugo would be so child-like. Further, the twisting of words and inserting his own sentences as mine does little to justify any argument. I did not say it was the best way, and certainly not the only way, I merely stated that at this time, that is the way things stand. Capitalism, or the 'profit-system', as we have known it, depends on the subjugation of other humans, and their 'rights'. Someday it might not need be so, but to hang onto the system because would be akin to saying slavery wasn't 'wrong'. (And indeed, Hugo claims that slavery in the US only went away because it became economically unviable, and had nothing to do with 'rights'.) I would say that any hypocricy would be on the part of Hugo, for he made no contention that slavery is a violation of the rights he claims humans inherently have, it only became unprofitable.

Dear Black Dog, This is what humans as a race have done. Hugo implies that this is only the case 'with exception', and that since humans are demonstrably superior, somehow, somewhere, 'rights' were created only for the 'superior'...

Dear kimmy, I am saving my lone vote for the first 'left-handed midget albino lesbian eskimo' candidate to come along, but I think it was just a song.

Dear Black Dog, Hugo and I had a lengthy discussion on this under 'Tyranny vs. Freedom". Basically, a 'right' is merely a wish. It (a 'right') can be bestowed or conferred upon you, by those you interact with, (even gov't), or by providence of nature, if you wield the overwhelming force to make it so or keep it so. Reminds me of an old bit from Monty Python, in The Life Of Brian, where some male zealots were talking, and... zealot 1: "I want to have babies". Zealot 2: "You can't" Zealot 1: "Don't you oppress me!" Zealot 2: "I'm not oppressing you, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?" Zealot one ponders this and.... Zealot 1: "Alright, then, I want the right to have babies". Zealot 2: "Fine, you can have the right to have babies".

IMR, and Sweal, There is far too much of that going on already without you two respected members wasting your time like that. I think Sweal was aware that my comment was tongue-in-cheek, and directed at the world in general. The topic itself might have been 'fishing' a bit, but many of the issues presently being discussed here are re-hashes of current events, or disingenuous, and started by one or more resident trolls. I see Sweal's thread topic a bit of 'fishing', with perhaps an ostensibly outrageous suggestion on how to address the issue, but it has tremendous possibility in the real world. How do the 'masses', weaned off (or unhappy with) their 'holy opium', get the ruling religious elite to recognize their own hypocrisy? (This would include everyone from Bin Laden to Prince Charles)

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, Hogwash. Reagan spent his country into unprecedented defecits, and it continues unabated to this day. The US dollar should, by now, be virtually worthless, and only foreign investors parking their money in the US supports this 'unnatural levitation act'.

Dear Terrible Sweal, Gee whiz, Sweal, are you trying to start a war?I completely agree, though. We should gather the top echelon of every major religion, and sequester them together until they sort out just what it is that 'God' said, and what they interpret that it means. It should be open to the public, but they cannot leave until it is sorted out. There might actually be some peace in the world after that. For a while, at least.

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, Hardy-har-har. The US is continuing a 'non-winning' strategy, and as 'Anonymous' states in Imperial Hubris, are merely deferring real war until a later date. The huge mistakes that have been made in Iraq and Afghanistan only ensure future conflict. This sounds as though it was written by the US State Dept and is not at all based on reality.

Dear Hawk, I am guessing you don't hang out in the 'Galt Gardens Lounge' to drink. I too, have met many of both kinds. I have worked with and consulted with the Tribal Council on the Blood Reserve, and have been on the Piikani (Peigan), T'suu T'ina, Siksika, Samson, Ermineskin, Louis Bull, Montana, Stoney(both in Eden Valley and Morely), and Sunchild Reserves. I met a great many wonderful people, and some 'drunken bums' as well. I believe what baden refers to is the knee-jerk racism and prejudice that comes at first sight, when people paint everyone of a race or colour with the same brush, without ever talking to them. I had a similar experience in Ft. Lauderdale, FL with a 'redneck' (which I wasn't aware of at the time). I was buying beer at 7-11 and marveling at the dirt-cheap prices, and a guy walked up to me and struck up a conversation about beer. In mid sentence, he notice to young blackish girls walk in and muttered 'F@*king ni&&ers". I was appalled, but didn't really think ALL Americans were like that. Baden seems to think it is quite common, but it only happened to me 100% of the time. So you have to keep an open mind.

Is disclosing information like this wise, or treasonous? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4110786.stm Further, if Mr. Goss claims that then he is a bald-faced liar as well. The last 7 words made me laugh out loud.Regardless, is it sheer stupidity to announce that you have basically found the hideout of the world's most wanted man? Or is it treasonous, by the fact of giving information to the 'enemy'? Does it tell us that the US really doen't want to catch him (at least not yet, they still need to secure another huge military and homeland defense budget, and new security laws in the US)? I am hard-pressed to find what could be a positive by releasing such information. Perhaps it is to pressure Pres. Perez and Pakistan into 'playing ball', but they already march when the CIA says so, so what's to gain? Muslim opinion in Pakistan can only go against the US if they try to make a big deal of Pakistan's 'non-cooperation' on terrorism. (This is assuming Bin Laden is indeed in the Peshawar/Safed Koh/Khyber area)

Dear August1991, Hee hee, NewsMax...hilarious. Are they affiliated with 'The Onion'? How foolish everyone must feel to think that the 'kidnap victims' weren't being spoiled rotten.

Dear Cartman, Perhaps, but it really is a 'federal political' subject so long as we are 'subjects'. As Hugo states, not all 'socialism' is bad, for the smallest example is the family unit. However, there must be rules and there must be enforcement, or the rules are worthless (like 'rights'). Whether or not 'voluntary socialism' is an attainable goal is another story. It is probably just as likely we will see a nation made up of 'responsible anarchists'. In both cases, it is likely never, but you never know. It will depend on what people value.

Dear August1991, It seems that the Iranians are choosing between bad and worse, as far as US-relations go. From the BBC... Rafsanjani is a sabre-rattler, for sure, but if the Iranians are looking for someone more radical than him, there could be trouble.

Dear Bakunin, I echo eureka's sentiment... If there was a choice between 'good gay' vs. good straight', or bad & bad, there might be a difference in opinions, but I doubt it. The people would mostly say 'it doesn't matter', and then vote how they truly felt. That is why the ballot box is secret.

Dear Black Dog, Certainly. Any brutal thug dictator not currently serving US interests had better watch out. There is a faint hope, because GW Bush (finally) recentlyadmitted that 'even the US has to watch with whom they jump into bed', but saying it and acting on it are two different things. 'Pres' Perez is in the US' favour because he is a 'moderate' Islamist, not a 'radical' one, which means that they can count on him to reasonably serve US interests, without the hassle of replacing him with someone who will.

Dear Tawasakm, My apologies, yet again, for not being clear. I did not mean to imply that you were after the moderator to sort out things... but I can understand how you would draw that conclusion from .Perhaps I could have said, "I, like you, wish that there were more specific rules (though they could only be 'rules of thumb') and guidelines regarding sources of information, but I fear that enforcement of such a policy commitment would be beyond the reasonable means and time constraints of any moderator". (or some other such blather, but hey, blathering is my forte).

Dera Tawasakm, I am afraid that this is out of the hands of the moderator, and must be solved by the posters. In my opinion, the poster should be expected to provide evidence of claims only if questioned or asked to do so, unless they wish to stave off future questioning by posting the source in the fiirst place. If someone gives a rebuttal, then he/she should provide evidence to the contrary. This is purely etiquette, mind you, for this is pretty much an opinion forum only. If anyone makes spurious claims with no evidence, then that poster probably should be ignored. The moderator simply wouldn't have time to verify claims or opinions on this site, and therefore can't really take a stand on the matter, unless a poster was making outrageous claims that were obviously 'trolling (holocaust denial, for example), in which case simply reporting the post is all anyone could do.

IMR, Well, you've heard it on this forum, you've heard it in the news, now there is a poll that echoes the sentiments..(mind you, I have only seen you use the 'equals sign'). Have you a point or a rebuttal?

Dear Hugo, According to whom? Not the buddhists, apparently, but I say that they are mistaken. This is forward and linear, not cyclical. I wish you'd pick another example. This one simply isn't as universal as you seem to think. I don't eat chocolate at all. (well, not entirely true, I do get some as gifts from customers at Christmas, but give almost all of it away to other customers and staff) Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

Dear Hugo, No, they are not 'exactly the same'. There is an innate 'fight or flight' drive from danger associated with self-preservation. There is no 'Do I stand in the headlights or do I eat sugar? drive. Besides, not everyone eats sugar, especially not 'refined sugar'. This is speculation, though not entirely unbelievable. It does not address the 'will to be for eternity', however. Because if the will of all things was 'not to be', then evolution and choices would be made by all things to not survive. This would lead eventually lead to nothingness, and I dare say that there is ample evidence that the opposite is true.

Dear Hugo, I'll agree with you here. However, I will disagree that this is a viable refutation. Were old age and death not inevitable, people would not take as many risks as they do now. The old saying, "if at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving" would be even more true. People like living, and for some, risk taking is 'living'. However, when one gambles anything, they look at what they can stand to lose. The possibility of immortality can skew the stakes infinte-fold. As far as the 'will to be' for all things goes, your argument is the strawman. As with the buddhists. 'Being' is, in and of itself, diametric to the 'will to not be', as would be procreation (which would be somewhat unnecessary with immortality) and evolution.

Dear Hugo, Yes, I do say this, but I do not use the technological developments as proof, but merely as a refutation that life is (or rather, will always be) impermanent. Good lord man, you must be kidding. You can't seriously be arguing that having a 'sweet tooth' is a plausible refutation for the nature of being!? Suicide, too, is a common occurence that shorten's a life-span, but that 'proves' nothing either. According to the buddhists, then, our goal for living would be to commit suicide at the earliest possible opportunity, which we both know isn't really the case.

Dear Hugo, The 'evolution' I refer to is that of overcoming obstacles to 'being' which were previously insurmountable. Adaptation (or evolution) allows creatures to do things to successfully 'be' that otherwise would have killed them. The advantage humans have is an awareness of these obstacles( an evolution of the mind), and our goal is immortality. There are advancements being made in this field, (arresting cellular degeneration, etc) which do indicate that" when an end is chosen, the path to it becomes apparent". Death is but a previously (and current, but possibly temporary) insurmountable obstacle on the path to 'always being'.

Dear Hugo, Not in those words, but you implied I was wrong by virtue of the number of believers, by saying... The I will say that the Buddhists are 'demonstrably' wrong. Besides, 350,000,000 doesn't mean squat, all I have to do is prove Buddha wrong. As I shall. My 'theory', or 'analytic dissection of that which is', is both empirically and a priori, a demonstrable truth. Here goes.... 'To be' or being, is divisible by it's boundaries. That which 'does be' is surrounded by an infinite assortment of that which does not be. Even 'cogito ergo sum' means that you are what you are and not what you're not. For example, before me is a computer, but there can only be one thing that is occupying that space...ergo there is an infinite number of things that aren't. Sixteen pails of buffalo snot, for instance. A blow up doll with oral and rectal orifices, and a face fashioned after Ronald Reagan (that one is in my closet, so I know it isn't here lol) is another example. One can only profess 'cogito ergo sum' if one does be. One cannot make this claim from a position of 'not being'. The 'Sixteen Pails of Buffalo Snot' (that isn't before you, along with the infinite other things) cannot claim to you..."I am not" (Just "I am snot", lol). Evolution would not occur if the meaning of life was 'not to be'. Evolution means "to be, more efficiently'. No creature would fill a niche, no creature would evn bother to reproduce, if 'being' was not the goal. (this could only suggest that 'self preservation, and the urge to reproduce' is guided by genes, and not by choice, which would still prove or lend credence to the notion that 'being' is a priori) The theory of 'not being' as the meaning of life would be contradictory to being, for it would imply 'being' is a mistake. Reproduction, then could only be driven by spite or malice toward one's self. There are indeed some, mostly religious types, that deny evolution, but I would say that there is enough empirical evidence to suggest evolution is an empirical truth. (I visited a few 'creationist' websites, and have seen enough ignorance to add those people to the list of 'those that will be left behind', and it will most likely be of choice. Their problem is not acknowledging the possibility that evolution was 'God's way of covering his tracks', for it does not nor cannot disprove the existence of a 'God' and maybe 'He' wanted it that way, to make 'faith' important). So, nature woudn't waste time on 'being' nor evolving, if the goal was 'not to be'. It would have geared itself to that end, not the other way around.