God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
It is obliviously obvious that you are not well educated on the grounds of variable dogmas pertaining to what defines god, rather by terms or names or definition, regardless of whatever laws they pretend to implement to the untamed minds of their created forms to follow. If you justify anything that any of your own personal attained knowledge through experience shall define a law of god you have already failed, and furthermore what separates man's law from a god's law is a no-contest, especially in a case such as yours where the only thing representing what you call a law of god or a law of man is nothing but the labels themselves....law of god and law of man. So you've accomplished nothing more than a stalemate, and not even with any one of us but with yourself. It's hysterical I tell you, especially coming from the likes you, someone who propagates the Illuminati.

Leviticus does not justify stupidity, but it is more than enough to define corruption of the human mind.

[Image: 24851795.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Responding to OP:

There's a very, very big problem with enforcing God's Law versus secular law. (I'll leave open entirely the question of whether a God exists or has a Law in the first place or whether that Law is actually moral. For this post, I'll assume all that as a hypothetical.)

Let's choose a nice, non-controversial example like, say, abortion. In the US, a woman gets a first-trimester abortion, mostly for financial or lifestyle reasons.

What does secular law say? Legal. No law broken, nothing to be enforced against her. (Technically, there are quite a few laws against abortion, but they're without force because the Supreme Court's declared them invalid.)

What does God's law say?

...ah, here's the rub.

SOME Christians (or at least people who claim to be Christian -- I won't get into trying to separate out claims of who isn't a "true" Christian or who is) say she's a murderer by God's law. Premeditated, of her own child. Ergo, deserves the death sentence.

Other Christians might say no, the scriptural basis for personhood in the womb is thin and can't definitively be read as being established in the first trimester, so no, not clearly murder. No law broken.

Others might say, yes, she done wrong, but the only thing God's Law says is to forgive her and that's that.

Others might say, yeah, it was wrong, unless she took an abortificant from a priest AFTER her husband decided she was cheating on her and paid the priest with barley flour.

Others might say, maybe she did wrong, maybe she didn't, but it's not for us to judge.

So.... what's God's Law? Who the fuck knows? Even the adherents of a single faith can't come up with a cohesive answer to that, and this is ONLY within Christianity. Bring in ALL the other faiths present in America and... well, we're still at "who the fuck knows", only with even less "knows" and extra "FUCK!"

Multiply this across a zillion zillion issues. Premarital sex? Working on a Sunday, or Saturday? Driving under the influence? Saying "goddammit" when you stub your toe? Blasphemy against Scientology?

Bottom line, you either have no law in force at all (because no one can agree what the Law is), OR you appoint a person or committee or something like that to DETERMINE what God's Law is. At that point, it's no longer God's Law, so much as Person or Group X's INTERPRETATION of God's Law, which... well, lacks the same moral pedigree.

It's not a question between secular law and God's law. It's a three-way choice between secular law, a particular religion/denomination/church/priest's INTERPRETATION of God's Law over the objections of all others, and utter anarchy. Also, history shows that option B tends to turn into option C when the objections get violent. So, yeah. I'll stick with secular law, thank you very much.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
16-11-2012, 06:54 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Phaedrus...

Quote:You take things *way* too personally.

Please. Explain to me. How the fuck should I take things?

You're walking down the street, having a conversation, and some punk takes a shot at you. You gonna play it cool? You gonna let it be like water on a duck's back? You're acting like a punk so I'm treating you like a punk. You wanna be treated like a man, then act like one. You wanna tell me that I shouldn't be offended when someone offends me? Sorry, son, ain't happenin. I shouldn't call you out when you ad hom me? Ya got another thing comin'.

Quote:You also take political theory way too seriously, which was the whole point.

You don't know how I take anything because you don't know me. That's the point. There's a whole lot of people on this site that can take a shot at me, or tell me to take it easy, or tell me to straight up fuck off and I'm cool with them because we know each other. We took the time to get to know one another. We're friends. You're an anonymous kid who has done absolutely nothing but try to explain to me who I am and what I'm like when you don't know me from the inside of your colon.

Quote:As long as there are rich people, there will be exceptions in the rules
for them. And there will always be rich people as long as there is
income inequality, and there will always be income inequality as long as
there is scarcity.

Thank you for that gem, Yoda. Finally, you make a point.

Rich people have power. Check. Income equality makes rich people. Kinda check, the cause and effect is a little wonky, but sure. Scarcity creates income inequality. Not so much.

Income equality is a by product of hierarchical organisations. But hey. At least you're using your words now.

Quote:And bitching about scarcity is a little like complaining about gravity.
Sure, it would be great if earth had a gravitational field of 0.8G
instead of 1.0G. But it doesn't.

I don't bitch about scarcity. Scarcity is unavoidable. But it doesn't quite have the effect you attribute to it, so my points can't be summarily dismissed. So, oh I don't know, lets have a conversation about it.

Quote:If you want to get rid of rich people, get yourself a
science/engineering degree and start working on whatever technologies
you think will lead to a post-scarcity economy.

No such thing as post-scarcity. And getting rid of scarcity, were it even possible, wouldn't get rid of rich people. We are on different pages in terms of where rich people come from it would seem.

Quote:We don't know what that post-scarcity economy will look like, or whether
it will be good or bad, but for sure the rich people won't matter
anymore.

It would look like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer sucking my cock. That is to say, it ain't happenin.

How's that? That less serious enough for ya?

Quote:That's my point. Feeling better now you know it isn't a personal attack?

Well, tough guy, it was a personal attack, so no, I don't feel better. The moment you realise that you attacked me, feel remorse for it and apologise, is the moment I'll feel better. But I ain't holdin my breath for that one.

Quote:Anyway, as for the original topic, I consider the question moot. I treat
competing ethical standards for what they are: competing memes, and may
the fittest one win.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

Cultural relativity AND memetics????????? Now you're speaking my fucking language, tough guy Cool

You do realise that the competition is not zero sum though, right (in terms of the "fittest ones")?

I wouldn't call the original question moot exactly, but for sure, I am judging it through my cultural lens.

There may be hope for you yet.


Hey, Cardinal.

Quote:But, it's not clear to me that what humanity needs is a new political system.

Amen, brother.

But really, the issue is the format of our organisation. It's hierarchical. Only problem is that other egalitarian non-hierarchical systems get wiped out by hierarchical ones. Ask the Aboriginal people of, well, everyfuckingwhere Sad

Quote:I thought the problems that plague us are internal, not systematic.
Problems like: the ability for humans to deceive one another, greed,
tribalism. I can't conceive of any moral system which will "solve"
problems like these (although, I admit, the idea of somehow solving
scarcity sounds promising perhaps). These problems have been plaguing
our species for how long now? At least as long as we've been recording
our own histories?

If the problems that plague us are in fact internal, as the Bible suggests and as secular law suggests, then we're all just polishing the knobs on the Titanic. It's all going down. Grab a hooker and start fucking, cuz what's the point?

Thankfully, I don't believe that the problem is internal.

Punitive justice systems look at behaviours that are disruptive (murder, theft, adultery, the list goes on) and say, "OK, we're gonna outlaw all of these behaviours. If you commit these acts, two things. 1 - We're gonna punish the fuck out of you and 2 - it's because there's something wrong with you. You are broken and need to either be fixed or removed from the equation (either temporarily or permanently)."

On the other hand, restorative justice systems look at humans themselves and say, "What kinds of things are we capable of? Let's see... wow, every single human is capable of every single behaviour given the right circumstances. In fact, we can expect that sometimes, people are going to be greedy and steal and murder and fight and (insert what we consider a crime/sin here). But we can expect that a lot of the time they're gonna be altruistic and generous and save lives and heal people and (insert anything we think of as virtuous/law abiding). So how about we say that when something happens that disrupts the whole, we figure out what we have to do to make things right; to restore harmony to the group? Sound good?"

Restorative systems don't "solve" these "problems", they embrace and anticipate them.

I offer that not to say, "here's the solution in a bow," but to point out that people have figured it out before. In fact, like most things human, we did it the other way for MOST of our species' existence.

Speaking to the OP, the problem with both the secular and religious law models is that they're both punitive. Same shit, different pile.


Hey, Gaest.

Quote:Or maybe our moral values fail miserably?

Hmmmmm.... well..... actually, no, I don't know how to respond to this one. Could you elaborate?



Quote:Well, except that one is secular the other one is not.

You already conceded this point to Vosur, just wanted to clarify.

Authority (one of the three components of power, the other two being coercion and influence) is actually an agreement between those who have it and those who are subject to it. For example, if the cops arrest a bank robber, I have no issue with that. By agreeing to let them to do so (either through action or inaction on my part), I am legitimising their authority. However, if a cop beat the fuck out of a centenarian for walking slowly, I'm not cool with that. That lies outside of our agreement. It is an illegitimate use of their authority.

Religious authority, by and large, is divine. God gave those with authority their authority. So those that are subject to that authority are asked to legitimise it based on that fact.

Civilian authority, by and large, is democratic. We elect people into positions of authority and their authority stems from that position. Or, they are appointed by those in power (like the US Supreme Court judges or the police force).

I say by and large because many churches have elected boards and many civilian authorities seised power.

The laws themselves are slightly different because the agreements are different. That's not just true between secular and religious systems, but within them as well.

At the end of the day, ALL authority is an agreement that we legitimise.



Quote:Agreed. But then it would be governed by norms and traditions - which often lead to law.

All cultures have norms. The question is, how are they enforced?



Quote:That sounds rather salty.

I can't speak from experience, but I imagine that's true.



Quote:Law is a pretty important system when you have to hold a larger group of
communities together. It´s not like the rich and powerful could not
exploit people without law... I´m not saying that everybody is equal but
I´m quite glad that the law secures my property, rights to life and to
not get randomly beat up since I´m neither rich nor strong. I do not
know how it is where you live but where I come from "law" actually
works.





Yeah, I can't complain "too much" about the laws in Canada, although we have some fucking doozies.

This common sense approach, that law is good because it protects us, is a Hobbesian idea. The ideological notion is that without law, life would be bedlam. People would push old ladies in front of buses and whatnot. Not true, but it's such a naturalised ideological position, that it feels true. I believe Colbert calls that truthiness.

Law IS the system we've adopted to hold large hierarchical communities together. But that doesn't mean it's the only one, or the best (or that we should remain in hierarchical societies). It just means that it's an evolutionarily stable strategy; or ESS.

The rich and powerful can exploit people BECAUSE of law. That's a super-important distinction.

To heavily paraphrase Daniel Quinn, the central part of the whole racket is the law that says the food should be kept under lock and key. All of the food. So if you want to eat, there is only one way to get at the food; you have to work for it.

If I was being raped 12 times a day, and someone reduced that to, well, any number less than 12, I'd be happy. I'd much rather live in a rape-free environment though. So be glad that the law protects you, but know we can do better.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 07:17 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Wow. Ok, if you can't take a chill pill, at least grow a thicker skin. And a sense of humor. Seriously, if you've decided to declare me your eternal enemy on the basis of one crack then I'm not sure how you've survived on this forum at all.


Seriously, not joking. No condescension here. Calm the fuck down.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 09:05 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(16-11-2012 07:20 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

At least with religious law you know where you stand. With secular law, it's all just a sham. Rich people act with impunity and always have. The law doesn't mean anything as far as they are concerned. It just makes the odd example out of someone with a slap on the wrist (see, the law is applied equally!) but lets most of them just do their thing. By and large, secular law is designed to maintain the status quo for the elites, not to make life fair for everyone. It's simply about control. That goes for both of them.

(Just incase there's any confusion, I'm not saying religious law is better. They're both equally shit.)

Both systems strive to be moral and they both fail miserably.

Both systems are identical save for one thing; their authority comes from different places. Other than that, no different.

Both systems are, at best, necessary evils, nothing more.

But the Hobbesian idea that without the rule of law the life of man would be nasty, bruthish and short, is just preposterous.

Both systems of law can lick my balls clean.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
It's really nice to see you come out pretty consistently agnostic on this issue (among others... I notice). But I really like secular law, and I don't understand your problem with it. Are you an anarchist? Do you think we'd be better off lawless?

What makes either law a necessary evil? I don't understand the "necessary" part of God's law (religions like buddhism, for example, do not have religious laws) or the "evil" part of secular law (since it strives to punish evil in an effort to lessen it).

While I agree with you historically that law has been made to favor the elites (feudalism is a great example of this), I don't believe that this actually happens today. Democracy was an invention specifically aimed at giving the common man a voice and a vote. In my home state of Maine, the law recently changed to allow gays to marry. The wealthy -- typically Republicans -- don't favor gay marriage but were unable to keep it illegal. I think their influence over our secular laws is minimal now.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2012 10:38 PM by Ghost.)
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Phaedrus.

Typical. You come out swinging like a bully but unfortunately for you, your target stood up to you and refuses to back down from your arm flailing. Now you don't know what to do except continue to keep flapping your gums in the wind. You're gutless.

Note, even when I take the time to address your points directly, you're incapable of engaging with an actual argument. You bypass it entirely and go back on the offensive. And that's what you are; offensive. I mean fuck, I love it. You offend someone and then blame them for it. Priceless. You're the kind of guy that would call a man a nigger and then say, "Relax, I was just joking. God, you take everything so seriously. Calm the fuck down." Too funny.

Instead of me growing a thicker skin, how about you man up and accept responsibility for what you did? Or is "I'm sorry" beyond the reach of your ego? And sarcastic I'm sorrys don't count.

You're not my eternal enemy. You're a punk. Pretty big difference. You poked the bee hive. I just swarmed out and stung you fifty times. Poor form for you to cry foul at this point.

And do you want to know how I survive in this forum? I don't take an inch of shit from anyone. Ask anyone Cool


Hey, Starcrash.

Quote:It's really nice to see you come out pretty consistently agnostic on this issue (among others... I notice).

I don't know how to interpret this. I'd like to assume it's benign but you accused me of a lot of things recently and we didn't exactly mend that fence. I'd appreciate it if you elaborated what you mean by this.

But, anyhoo, I give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to your post in friendship and brotherhood. Real talk.

Quote:But I really like secular law, and I don't understand your problem with
it. Are you an anarchist? Do you think we'd be better off lawless?

I was pretty clear about why I dislike it in my last post. It's a punitive system and punitive systems suck.

I'm not an anarchist. This isn't a binary thing. It's not a question of, we either have secular law or we have nothing. I'm for an alternative.

Quote:What makes either law a necessary evil? I don't understand the
"necessary" part of God's law (religions like buddhism, for example, do
not have religious laws) or the "evil" part of secular law (since it
strives to punish evil in an effort to lessen it).

In WWII, the Germans had a cryptographic code called Enigma. The English cracked it and could decipher all German communications. This was a key advantage for Operation Overlord. Before D-Day, they decoded a German message that stated that Luftwaffe bombers were going to raze the English city of Coventry to the ground. Churchill knew that if he evacuated Coventry, the Germans would realise they had cracked Enigma, they would have changed it and that would have put D-Day in jeopardy. So Churchill gave the order; nothing was to be done. Coventry was razed. The destruction of Coventry was a necessary evil. That's all the idiom means.

Hierarchical societies are astronomically difficult to manage. Both secular law and religious law are, at best, necessary evils ('at best' being the operative term) because despite how loathsome they are, they help in that particular task.

But just because they are of use, does not mean that they are beyond criticism or above replacement.

Like I mentioned above, the two systems are actually sub-categories of a larger system, namely punitive justice. The permutations of both secular and religious law may be different, but it's the same shit, different pile.

Quote:While I agree with you historically that law has been made to favor the
elites (feudalism is a great example of this), I don't believe that this
actually happens today.

I beg to differ and I offer as exhibit A, the aftermath of the 2009 financial meltdown.

Check out the film "Margin Call" or the documentary "Inside Job". They're both excellent.

Quote:Democracy was an invention specifically aimed at giving the common man a voice and a vote.

It was invented by the Athenians thousands of years ago and we still haven't figured it out Cool

In all seriousness though, democracy and law are two separate issues. To qualify that statement, I offer this: secular law exists outside of democracies.

Quote:In my home state of Maine, the law recently changed to allow gays to
marry. The wealthy -- typically Republicans -- don't favor gay marriage
but were unable to keep it illegal. I think their influence over our
secular laws is minimal now.

For me, this illustrates the fundamental problem with the notion of "fundamental human rights".

Rights are not something we have, rights are something that we are given by those in power. The fewer rights we have, the easier we are to manage (accepting that there is a point of diminishing returns which, once past, pretty much guarantees a revolution, but hey). So there is an eternal dance in which they try to give us the fewest rights possible and we try to accrue the most rights possible. Gay marriage is a battle (and an important one, I fully support it for the record). But it isn't the war if you know what I mean.

At the end of the day, it's absolutely true that there are some laws that make life better for us. But like I said before, less rape isn't as good as no rape. Gay marriage, legalised pot, interracial marriage, universal sufferage, are all ultimately meaningless if the system itself is the issue. It's like the Dutch story of the leaking dyke. If it springs a leak, stick your finger in it. But the problem isn't the leak, the problem is that the dyke is unsound.

Quote:People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands that it be that way. There’s no villain, no ‘mean guy’ who wants them to live meaningless lives, it’s just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless. But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will
repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.
-Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(16-11-2012 10:35 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Phaedrus.

Typical. You come out swinging like a bully but unfortunately for you, your target stood up to you and refuses to back down from your arm flailing. Now you don't know what to do except continue to keep flapping your gums in the wind. You're gutless.

Note, even when I take the time to address your points directly, you're incapable of engaging with an actual argument. You bypass it entirely and go back on the offensive. And that's what you are; offensive. I mean fuck, I love it. You offend someone and then blame them for it. Priceless. You're the kind of guy that would call a man a nigger and then say, "Relax, I was just joking. God, you take everything so seriously. Calm the fuck down." Too funny.

Instead of me growing a thicker skin, how about you man up and accept responsibility for what you did? Or is "I'm sorry" beyond the reach of your ego? And sarcastic I'm sorrys don't count.

You're not my eternal enemy. You're a punk. Pretty big difference. You poked the bee hive. I just swarmed out and stung you fifty times. Poor form for you to cry foul at this point.

And do you want to know how I survive in this forum? I don't take an inch of shit from anyone. Ask anyone Cool


I was going to ask if you wanted an apology, but at this rate you seem to think this is some type of sparring match. Oooh, I poked the beehive, I got stung oooh your verbal prowess positively stings. *rolleyes* I was perfectly willing to apologize for offending you with a mildly condescending comment, but if you're going to be this petulant, childish, and butthurt, I'd rather not bother.

I will say ONE LAST TIME

CALM THE FUCK DOWN


And I will apologize and engage in debate. Right now you're trying to big yourself up and be the internet tough guy, and it is not working. Calm your tits first, I'll apologize for offending your sensitive sensibilities, and we can discuss like adults.




Before you respond with more inanities,

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and ask for an apology. Then we can end this ridiculous bullshit. k?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 11:04 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Or what, tough guy? You gonna hit me with some large size font again? Lol.

Quote:I was going to ask if you wanted an apology, but at this rate you seem
to think this is some type of sparring match. Oooh, I poked the beehive,
I got stung oooh your verbal prowess positively stings.
*rolleyes* I was perfectly willing to apologize for offending you with a
mildly condescending comment, but if you're going to be this petulant,
childish, and butthurt, I'd rather not bother.

What a laughable pile of horseshit. Everything is my fault. ROFL. You are transparent.

Quote:Take a deep breath, count to ten, and ask for an apology.

Sorry, champ. That's not how apologising works. You apologise voluntarily because you believe you did something wrong and want to make amends, I decide whether or not I accept it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 11:13 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Fucking hell, kid...

Everyone on this forum gives each other shit, and I've been around and active, and I think I might even have skyped with you once. You make a post that I think is naive, so I give you a snarky, condescending response. And then you flip your shit, and get all offended and start trying to insult me, and act like this is some huge point you need to win.

To use a naval analogy, I sent you a morse message calling you a bozo, and you responded with your fucking 16" guns. The response is wildly disproportionate to the initiating offense, and that is why I'm not backing down here. But since I'm not fifteen, I'm trying to get you to cool off, rather than escalating. So why won't you?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2012, 12:04 AM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Man, I think I'm gonna convert to Theism! You are so acting exactly how I predicted, omniscience must be true!

You're not backing down cuz you want to save face and avoid looking like a punk. The problem is, you acted like one. So stop trying to make me the villain and you the victim. You can pretend like you've been wronged and do nothing if you like. The only consequence is that I go on thinking you're a punk and so does everyone else who read this little exchange and who agrees with me. Or you can apologise, like you mean it, if you choose. Whatever you decide to do, you're deciding. I ain't making a single damn choice for you.

You've been around for two months. I've been here two years. You don't know a thing about me (we sure as fuck didn't Skype). I don't even know your name. So I'll learn ya about me. I write long thoughtful responses to people's questions. I take the time to offer the most honest insight I can. That's my thing. But I have exactly zero patience for ad hominem attacks. None. I call people out quick, fast and in a hurry. I think it's fair to say that I'm notorious for it. If I know you, then I might know that you're joking. But I don't know you. So I don't rightly care if you think you're being funny or if you think it's all right to speak to people the way you speak to them. You don't know me like that. So, I told you you crossed a line. And what did you do? You kept pushing and had the audacity to blame me for everything. Well sorry, buddy, this old horse pushes back. And I don't apologise for a second. I've torn strips off of a lot of people on this site, but I've never, ever, just read someone's post and responded by attacking them. Because that shit has no place. As the saying goes, I don't start fights, but I sure as fuck finish them.

The 16" gun analogy is a good one. If you, or anyone, wants to talk, I have infinite patience. I will discuss things for days, for weeks, I will take hours out of my day to write considered responses to what you say and I will treat you and your ideas with respect. But if you take a single shot at me, that infinite patience becomes infinite.... let's call it displeasure. It's about mutual respect, brother. Plain and simple. You never should have called me a bozo and I like to think that you know that.





You're a man. You should know by now that if you cross a line with another man, intentionally or no, you have no one to blame but yourself and it's up to you to make amends.

I had a great teacher once, truly a genius, and he taught me that the worst thing you can do to someone is dismiss them. That's what you did with your first post. Then, instead of seeing what your words did and admitting that you crossed a line, intentionally or not, you continued to attack me in some misguided attempt to make me back down so you could save face and assert your dominance. It's not happening because I ain't having it. I will not be insulted, I will not be dismissed and I sure as hell won't be bullied.

So you do whatever you think is right. Your actions will speak for themselves. I will continue to do what I think is right, as I always do. And that, for me, is never allowing anyone to ad hom me with impunity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: