Sources of Evil
Robert J. Kolker
nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
magnifies them.
Bob Kolker
NashtOn
Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel. We know that religion isn't to
blame for the ills of mankind, except in the heads of the evocultists
who attempt to dis spirituality at every turn.
Nicola
Matthew Isleb
Hah! Mr. Kolker, the man who suggests killing off the poor, talks to us
about evil. Rich.
BTW, did you change your email address or something? I could have sworn I
killfiled your cold, heartless ass.
-matthew
Shane
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
>> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
>> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
>> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
>> magnifies them.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>>
>
> Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel.
Yeah Bob, you are straying into Nicky's territory if you do that.
<snip standard Nicky brand sophomoric drivel>
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
Gary Bohn
news:42diggF...@individual.net:
All that religion does is give control over the masses. If the
leadership using religion desires a specific action from the controlled
populace, all he/she/it needs to do is justify the action within the
religious context.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
NashtOn
Are you some kind of psychopath stalking me, Shane?
Have you *ever* contributed anything than to be a lapdog and a goon for
the people that actually know what they're talking about in this ng?
Nicola
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:52:26 GMT, NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>
>>>>The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
>>>>nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
>>>>pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
>>>>flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
>>>>magnifies them.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Kolker
>>>>
>>>
>>>Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel.
>>
>> Yeah Bob, you are straying into Nicky's territory if you do that.
>>
>> <snip standard Nicky brand sophomoric drivel>
>>
>
> Are you some kind of psychopath stalking me, Shane?
Excuse me, your paranoia is showing. But to answer the question yet
again, no.
The next sentence does not parse, so I will answer as I see fit.
> Have you *ever* contributed anything
Yep, I give a reasonable amount of money to charity, and do volunteer
work on a daily basis.
> than to be a lapdog
No, I have never been a lapdog, although I do share a common ancestry
with them.
> and a goon
No, I have never been a goon; sadly I was too young, and they finished
before I was old enough to appreciate their particular brand of
humour.
> for
> the people that actually know what they're talking about in this ng?
I am glad you finally admit that the those who support evolution are
the ones on this ng that know what they are talking about. So why do
you support those who do not?
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel. We know that religion isn't to
> blame for the ills of mankind, except in the heads of the evocultists
> who attempt to dis spirituality at every turn.
Consider the fell influence of extreme Islamic fanaticism. Do you recall
what happened on 9/11/2001? Religious craziness at work.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Hah! Mr. Kolker, the man who suggests killing off the poor, talks to us
> about evil. Rich.
I do not advocate killing off the poor. I advocate not feeding, clothing
or housing them.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> All that religion does is give control over the masses. If the
> leadership using religion desires a specific action from the controlled
> populace, all he/she/it needs to do is justify the action within the
> religious context.
>
Two Words: Al Islam.
Look at the stuff the imams did in Iran.
Bob Kolker
Josh M.
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42duppF...@individual.net...
Why?
> Bob Kolker
>
rja.ca...@excite.com
He who smelt it, dealt it, Nasht' - but, yeah, Shane, this is kinda
being a dick. There isn't a need for someone to go around and slam
Nashton for every post. Nashton is self-criticising, unconsciously (or
so it seems).
wf...@comcast.net
>>
>
>Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel. We know that religion isn't to
>blame for the ills of mankind, except in the heads of the evocultists
>who attempt to dis spirituality at every turn.
>
>Nicola
wonder if nicola's ever read the bible...philemon, for example, where
paul sends an escaped slave back to his owner...
Shane
I don't slam him for every post, he posts far more than I have time
for. As for the need business, I somewhat disagree, if Nicky feels the
need to propogate lies and nonsense, should any of us stand by and
blithely let him to do so without some form of protest? And as Nicky
has shown himself to be pretty much impervious to science and reason,
I try another method, which surprisingly enough, seems to get through
to him. Go figure.
--
Shane
CreateThis
It's you we diss at every turn. Demonstrate some spirituality.
CT
J. J. Lodder
From your limited American view perhaps.
Taking a longer view one may note that the church
was -the- civilizing influence in early Western Europe.
Without it we might still have
nothing but feudal warfare between barons,
fighting from greed, anger, lust, pride, arrogance.
History doesn't seem to be your strongest point,
Jan
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Why?
>
They take up room and breathe oxygen that I and my progeny can use. To
be more specific, I oppose aid to the poor using taxpayer money. If
someone wants to give their own money to the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid that is their money and their business.
As for me, I ask: What have the poor done for me lately.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> From your limited American view perhaps.
> Taking a longer view one may note that the church
> was -the- civilizing influence in early Western Europe.
Right. Do you know how Hypatia died? Some civilizating influence that was.
Bob Kolker
J. J. Lodder
On the contrary, it was a well calculated move.
And very succesful one too,
for it accomplished precisely what it set out to achieve:
getting the USA to start a stupid war
which will be seen by many as a war against islam.
Mr Bin Laden is much smarter than Mr Bush,
and probably also less fanatical in the way of religion.
But you are off-topic,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >
> > From your limited American view perhaps.
> > Taking a longer view one may note that the church
> > was -the- civilizing influence in early Western Europe.
[snipping all context and starting about something else]
> Right. Do you know how Hypatia died? Some civilizating influence that was.
Incapble of fair discussion?
Jan
mcv
> Josh M. wrote:
>
>> Why?
>
> They take up room and breathe oxygen that I and my progeny can use. To
> be more specific, I oppose aid to the poor using taxpayer money.
So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
medieval church was right to be greedy?
mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film
Robert J. Kolker
>
> How about giving poor children a chance to go to school, so they *may*
> escape poverty one day?
First I take care of mine.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
> medieval church was right to be greedy?
One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
people's money.
The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
resources of others is an abomination. There may be practical reasons
for helping the unfortunate, such as avoiding civil conflict but there
is no clear cut moral directive that demands that one should sacrifice
himself for strangers. Only a Christian could come up with that one.
That is one reason why Christianity is a very bad religion; it preaches
Altruism. The right way is reciprocal selfishness. Mutual help and
trade. One helps his neighbor and recieves help in return.
Bob Kolker
mcv
>
>> So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
>> medieval church was right to be greedy?
>
> One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
> people's money.
>
> The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
> resources of others is an abomination.
It's not a matter of rightful claims, it's just that it's good to help
other people, and that nobody deserves to die just because they happen
to be born on the wrong side of the divide in a harsh country.
As for tax and social security, some people manage to profit quite a
lot from the society they're born in (even if it's just because they
happen to have the right parents), while others suffer a lot from that
same society. It's only right that that society makes some sort of
attempt to rectify that situation. There's not much of a wealth
difference between members of hunter-gatherer communities. The wealth
differences come when you add society and the different roles to fulfill
in that society.
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>mcv wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
>>>medieval church was right to be greedy?
>>
>>One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
>>people's money.
>>
>>The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
>>resources of others is an abomination.
>
>
> It's not a matter of rightful claims, it's just that it's good to help
> other people, and that nobody deserves to die just because they happen
> to be born on the wrong side of the divide in a harsh country.
Why is it good? One can find a practical good if there is a long term
material gain to the giver that flows from his gift. So if help for the
poor is regarded as an investment, rather than dues owed to the poor, it
is conceivable that some such investments could pay the given reward
defined in the givers terms. That would make helping the poor and
manifestion of self interest, which is o.k. by me.
>
> As for tax and social security, some people manage to profit quite a
> lot from the society they're born in (even if it's just because they
> happen to have the right parents), while others suffer a lot from that
> same society. It's only right that that society makes some sort of
> attempt to rectify that situation.
Have you ever read the legend (myth?) of Procrustes?
Cut the long ones down to size and stretch the short ones up to size and
we will all be mediocre together.
The only ones I have a positive obligation to help and nurture are me,
my wife and my children. Stangers I can help or not help as the
situation dictates.
If you want to bleed and suffer for the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid, go right ahead, as long as it is YOUR blood you are shedding.
Leave my blood alone.
Bob Kolker
tgde...@earthlink.net
What does that mean, "positive obligation"? Isn't helping your wife and
children the same kind of choice as helping anyone else? Isn't even
having a wife and children to whom to be obliged a choice?
-tg
Shane
> Josh M. wrote:
>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> They take up room and breathe oxygen that I and my progeny can use. To
> be more specific, I oppose aid to the poor using taxpayer money. If
> someone wants to give their own money to the lamed, the maimed and the
> stupid that is their money and their business.
And I believe that is exactly the attitude the government has too. It is
their money, not yours, so why are you bellyaching?
>
> As for me, I ask: What have the poor done for me lately.
Apparently, as much as you have done for them, nothing, so no surprise
that they are not tripping over themselves to do something for you. This
is just like you and the muslims, another group you sling off at, by and
large, you are indistinguishable from them.
--
Shane
Ken Shackleton
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> mcv wrote:
>
> >
> > So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
> > medieval church was right to be greedy?
>
> One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
> people's money.
>
> The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
> resources of others is an abomination.
So you would agree then that our ancestors committed an abomination by
colonizing North America.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> What does that mean, "positive obligation"? Isn't helping your wife and
> children the same kind of choice as helping anyone else? Isn't even
> having a wife and children to whom to be obliged a choice?
No, and here is why. I chose my wife. We chose to have children. I did
not choose strangers. By my choices and the joint choices of my wife and
I we have entered into a contract which we are bound to honor. The only
contract I have with strangers is that I will not initiate a wrong
against them. That is a negative obligation or duty. Where strangers are
concerned I my obligations stop at do no evil.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> And I believe that is exactly the attitude the government has too. It is
> their money, not yours, so why are you bellyaching?
Every cent the government has is stolen money. Taxation is theft.
Bob Kolker
Ken Shackleton
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> NashtOn wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel. We know that religion isn't to
> > blame for the ills of mankind, except in the heads of the evocultists
> > who attempt to dis spirituality at every turn.
>
> Consider the fell influence of extreme Islamic fanaticism. Do you recall
> what happened on 9/11/2001? Religious craziness at work.
Retribution for American foreign policy at work. America supports
dictatorial and corrupt regimes that subjugate their people....Saudi
Arabia being a prime example. The 9/11 attacks were planned and carried
out by intelligent and calculating individuals that new exactly how the
US would respond.
The US has played into the hands of the terrorists.
>
> Bob Kolker
Ken Shackleton
How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
>
> Bob Kolker
rja.ca...@excite.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> mcv wrote:
>
> >
> > So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
> > medieval church was right to be greedy?
>
> One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
> people's money.
Ah yes, the love of money... however, you fail to understand what money
actually is. It is a token of other people's willingness to favour you
with goods and services, in exchange for money. But it has no
intrinsic value. It is merely a means of accounting of reasonable
mutual goodwill.
Regardless of your bank balance, you seem not to be doing so well at
providing yourself with goodwill, so where it really matters you are
quite poor. Which I guess means that you're excused from charitable
giving.
Hmm. I believe I proved /something/ there but I'm not sure what. ;-)
David Jensen
That is utter nonsense.
Do you enjoy redefining words to suit your purposes?
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Retribution for American foreign policy at work. America supports
> dictatorial and corrupt regimes that subjugate their people....Saudi
> Arabia being a prime example. The 9/11 attacks were planned and carried
> out by intelligent and calculating individuals that new exactly how the
> US would respond.
>
> The US has played into the hands of the terrorists.
I can hardly wait until we nuke Meccah which is what will happen after
the Next Big One.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
User fees and subscriptions.
About one hundred and twenty years ago, fire protection services were
privately purchased by those who wanted them. Those who did not buy, got
no service and their houses burned down. If the nbrs subsribed the fire
dept would wet their houses down so the fire would not spread.
We get a fine steady food supply from privately owned food stores and
reasonable prices. It seems to me we could purchase police and fire
services privately through insurance policies.
There are alternatives to taxation for just about anything but national
defense. For that we use subscription. If enough people subscribe and
pay we get national defense. If not, not.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Regardless of your bank balance, you seem not to be doing so well at
> providing yourself with goodwill, so where it really matters you are
> quite poor. Which I guess means that you're excused from charitable
> giving.
I give to charities of MY choice. I would rather not give to charities
of the government's choice.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That is utter nonsense.
>
> Do you enjoy redefining words to suit your purposes?
Try not paying taxes for services you never contracted to receive in
the first place and see what happens to you and your property.
Government is first and foremost a protection racket.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So you would agree then that our ancestors committed an abomination by
> colonizing North America.
No. That is in the past and none of my doing. I am responsible for my
acts. Besides my ancestors came over on the pickle boat in the late 19th
century. So none of mine did anything to screw the Injuns.
The children shall not suffer for the sins of their parents nor the
parents for the sins of their children.
If you are upset, invent a time machine, go back and do something about it.
Bob Kolker
Ken Shackleton
Nope......not a war on Islam.....just against terrorists....
Ken Shackleton
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
>
> User fees and subscriptions.
>
> About one hundred and twenty years ago, fire protection services were
> privately purchased by those who wanted them. Those who did not buy, got
> no service and their houses burned down. If the nbrs subsribed the fire
> dept would wet their houses down so the fire would not spread.
And why do you think that this is no longer the case? Could it be that
through the democratic process that the constituents preferred to fund
this through taxes? Also, I could not imagine a more ludicrous method
of fire protection than by letting one [or several] houses burn while
wetting down others. This likely resulted in many "protected" houses
also being burned to the ground as the fires got out of control.
Perhaps the Fire Department suggested the suppression of all fires to
reduce damage [and their costs].
>
> We get a fine steady food supply from privately owned food stores and
> reasonable prices. It seems to me we could purchase police and fire
> services privately through insurance policies.
Right.....until you have a second fire and are no longer
insurable....or you get broken into and the cops start to ignore you.
Before there were government funded police forces.....gangs running
protection rackets did exactly what you propose.
>
> There are alternatives to taxation for just about anything but national
> defense. For that we use subscription. If enough people subscribe and
> pay we get national defense. If not, not.
So....some people could get a free ride by refusing to pay the
subscription, hoping that enough of their neighbors pony up the cash?
Taxation is cheaper.
>
> Bob Kolker
Ken Shackleton
You didn't answer the question....I was not blaming you and I for the
acts of our ancestors at all....I want you to tell me if THEY committed
and abomination [to use your words] by taking was was rightfully
someone else's property [land].
>
> Bob Kolker
Bonfire of the Deities...
news:1h8wcf9.h85mhm1w62cqxN@de-
> From your limited American view perhaps.
> Taking a longer view one may note that the church
> was -the- civilizing influence in early Western Europe.
>
> Without it we might still have
> nothing but feudal warfare between barons,
> fighting from greed, anger, lust, pride, arrogance.
>
> History doesn't seem to be your strongest point,
Why don't we all read some...?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/xian-barbarism.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm
Bonf.
Radix2
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Matthew Isleb wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hah! Mr. Kolker, the man who suggests killing off the poor, talks to us
> > about evil. Rich.
>
> I do not advocate killing off the poor. I advocate not feeding, clothing
> or housing them.
>
> Bob Kolker
You know Bob. Despite how often I disagree with the likes of Nashton or
Logos or any other creationist, I have not once seen them display such
an inhumane and cold evilness as you. I think your desire to
premptively murder all muslims (expressed elsewhere) is the depth of
depravity.
What a shame Karma is just a superstitious principle.
David Jensen
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
<42g4jpF...@individual.net>:
And it does its best job protecting those who pay the most taxes.
Anarchy is not a good alternative.
David Jensen
Utter nonsense.
Alan Morgan
No, taxation is not theft. You may think that it is morally akin to theft,
but it is not legally theft. It might be fun to redefine words to mean whatever
you want, but it doesn't lead to sound arguments.
Given that you are free to leave this country, I would argue that the fact that
you remain constitutes implicit agreement to be bound by this country's laws.
Taxation is lawful and you have agreed to it. Not theft.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
coast...@gmail.com
hbar...@troy.edu
"evils", but it certainly helps!
HB
Ye Old One
<now...@nowhere.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
>
>User fees and subscriptions.
Another name for taxes.
>
>About one hundred and twenty years ago, fire protection services were
>privately purchased by those who wanted them. Those who did not buy, got
>no service and their houses burned down. If the nbrs subsribed the fire
>dept would wet their houses down so the fire would not spread.
But spread it often did. Fire is a threat to us all, it is better to
deal with it as a society rather than as individuals.
>
>We get a fine steady food supply from privately owned food stores and
>reasonable prices. It seems to me we could purchase police and fire
>services privately through insurance policies.
Everyone need to eat every day and also want to make a choice of the
type of food they eat.
The police and fire services are very different.
And why should insurance companies make a profit our of it?
>
>There are alternatives to taxation for just about anything but national
>defense. For that we use subscription. If enough people subscribe and
>pay we get national defense. If not, not.
>
>Bob Kolker
Tax is just something we have to live with as long as there is money.
Do away with money and we don't need taxes.
--
Bob.
rev.goetz
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Josh M. wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> They take up room and breathe oxygen that I and my progeny can use. To
> be more specific, I oppose aid to the poor using taxpayer money. If
> someone wants to give their own money to the lamed, the maimed and the
> stupid that is their money and their business.
>
> As for me, I ask: What have the poor done for me lately.
>
> Bob Kolker
Bob, I am not trying to push Christmas on you, but would you consider
reading or watching "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens?
rja.ca...@excite.com
> It's times like this I wish this newsgroup was more strictly moderated.
I dunno, it's a useful learning experience, I think. It's good to meet
someone like Robert Kolker once in a while, and preferably with about a
thousand miles and an off-switch in between. Just in case you're
starting to have faith in the goodness of humanity.
VoiceOfReason
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
> magnifies them.
Religion can be misused no more and no less than any other institution.
mvil...@gmail.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
> magnifies them.
>
What the hell dude, with all of the stuff you say about nuking and/or
mowing people down with machine guns, you'd be the LAST person I
thought would believe in "good" and "evil"
I disagree with you a lot, but I at least hoped you'd share my belief
that there's no such thing as good and evil.
catshark
<mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:36:58 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
>> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
>> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
>> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
>> magnifies them.
>
>Hah! Mr. Kolker, the man who suggests killing off the poor, talks to us
>about evil. Rich.
Actually, it sounds like he is intimately familiar with the subject.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I go on this great republican principle,
that the people will have virtue and intelligence
to select men of virtue and wisdom.
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not,
we are in a wretched situation.
- James Madison -
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> You know Bob. Despite how often I disagree with the likes of Nashton or
> Logos or any other creationist, I have not once seen them display such
> an inhumane and cold evilness as you. I think your desire to
> premptively murder all muslims (expressed elsewhere) is the depth of
> depravity.
Simple rules.
1. Treat your friends well and protect them.
2. Treat your customers right, for they feed you.
3. Kill your enemies.
We live in an evil world were no good deed will go unpunished. This is
not the world I made, but it is the world I live in.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Good. So you don't let them starve. That's at least something. What is
> more evil (and degrading) than starvation?
I have no positive duty to feed strangers. I could let them starve or I
could feed them depending on my mood and the impression they make on me.
You really are having a hard time grasping the simple principle, that
outside of a real contract (not this social contract bullshit) there is
no positive obligation to benefit the other party.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> And it does its best job protecting those who pay the most taxes.
>
> Anarchy is not a good alternative.
A protection racket is better? Do you like being extorted and threatened?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Bob, I am not trying to push Christmas on you, but would you consider
> reading or watching "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens?
Oh really! The makkish sentimentality of Dickens underwhelms me.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I disagree with you a lot, but I at least hoped you'd share my belief
> that there's no such thing as good and evil.
How about threats and non-threats?
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:56:09 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <now...@nowhere.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
>>
>>User fees and subscriptions.
>
>
> Another name for taxes.
Wrong. One does not have to buy the service and one can choose not to
subscribed. Taxes are enforced.
Bob Kolker
rja.ca...@excite.com
Shane wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2006 18:38:35 -0800, rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
>
> > He who smelt it, dealt it, Nasht' - but, yeah, Shane, this is kinda
> > being a dick. There isn't a need for someone to go around and slam
> > Nashton for every post. Nashton is self-criticising, unconsciously (or
> > so it seems).
>
> I don't slam him for every post, he posts far more than I have time
> for.
Every one you see, then? :-)
> As for the need business, I somewhat disagree, if Nicky feels the
> need to propogate lies and nonsense, should any of us stand by and
> blithely let him to do so without some form of protest? And as Nicky
> has shown himself to be pretty much impervious to science and reason,
> I try another method, which surprisingly enough, seems to get through
> to him. Go figure.
Have we actually tried dignified silence? It's tremendously effective
sometimes, and it saves bandwidth.
rev.goetz
I cannot find the meaning of "makkish" in a google search. What does
"makkish" mean?
rja.ca...@excite.com
> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
> magnifies them.
You shouldn't try to spell long words when you're drunk.
I'd put it that religion is liable to be used to justify or to
encourage certain attitudes that do not favour tolerance and the common
good, if one deems tolerance and the common good to include people
outside the religion and their goods. And I'd attribute this effect to
the fact that people are more likely to choose a religion that
justifies their selfishness. Nor, I'd say, is selfishness always
unreasonable; for instance, I'd be very reluctant to give up my house,
bed, or dinner to a stranger in need.
Thus, for instance, Christian churches no longer demand the entire
worldly assets of their new members, as they were said to have done
initially in the Acts of the Apostles. Instead, if you're wealthy,
you're allowed to believe that God wants you to stay wealthy.
mvil...@gmail.com
Much better. Though I like what an professor told me a while back.
"No such thing as good and evil. Only cause and effect driven by
action and reaction."
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Actually, it sounds like he is intimately familiar with the subject.
Personally I don't do evil. I have stolen no one's purse, not have I set
fire to anyone's house or fields. I have not intentionally shed blood.
My hands are clean. I just do not love mankind particularly. A few
people (including my family) I like well enough and get along with. The
rest I am indifferent to. My enemies I loathe and if I had the means I
would destroy them without a qualm.
Now if you want to make evil out of that, go to it.
Bob Kolker
>
AC
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
>> nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
>> pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
>> flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
>> magnifies them.
>>
>>
>
> Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel. We know that religion isn't to
> blame for the ills of mankind, except in the heads of the evocultists
> who attempt to dis spirituality at every turn.
So perhaps you could explain what precisely produced nearly two millennia of
anti-Semitism in Christendom.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Shane wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:52:26 GMT, NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>
>>>>The organized relgions of the world are not the only sources of evil
>>>>nasty behaviour. Long before churches and dogma were greed, anger, lust,
>>>>pride, arrogance. From these defects much of the evil of the world
>>>>flows. Organized religion very ofted excacerbates the passions and
>>>>magnifies them.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Kolker
>>>>
>>>
>>>Kolker, spare us your sophomoric drivel.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip standard Nicky brand sophomoric drivel>
>>
>
>
> Are you some kind of psychopath stalking me, Shane?
>
> Have you *ever* contributed anything than to be a lapdog and a goon for
> the people that actually know what they're talking about in this ng?
And what precisely is your contribution. It seems to be:
* I hate educated people.
* I think evolution is useless, and refuse to address any counterclaim.
* I'm a mean bastard who enjoys being a bigoted prick.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Shane
> mcv wrote:
>
>> Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>mcv wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
>>>>medieval church was right to be greedy?
>>>
>>>One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
>>>people's money.
>>>
>>>The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
>>>resources of others is an abomination.
>>
>> It's not a matter of rightful claims, it's just that it's good to help
>> other people, and that nobody deserves to die just because they happen
>> to be born on the wrong side of the divide in a harsh country.
>
> Why is it good? One can find a practical good if there is a long term
> material gain to the giver that flows from his gift. So if help for the
> poor is regarded as an investment, rather than dues owed to the poor, it
> is conceivable that some such investments could pay the given reward
> defined in the givers terms. That would make helping the poor and
> manifestion of self interest, which is o.k. by me.
>
>>
>> As for tax and social security, some people manage to profit quite a
>> lot from the society they're born in (even if it's just because they
>> happen to have the right parents), while others suffer a lot from that
>> same society. It's only right that that society makes some sort of
>> attempt to rectify that situation.
>
> Have you ever read the legend (myth?) of Procrustes?
>
> Cut the long ones down to size and stretch the short ones up to size and
> we will all be mediocre together.
>
> The only ones I have a positive obligation to help and nurture are me,
> my wife and my children. Stangers I can help or not help as the
> situation dictates.
>
> If you want to bleed and suffer for the lamed, the maimed and the
> stupid, go right ahead, as long as it is YOUR blood you are shedding.
> Leave my blood alone.
>
> Bob Kolker
I am sure the Romanovs, and Louis and Marie may give you at least one
good reason not to ignore the plight of the poor.
--
Shane
Robert J. Kolker
> You didn't answer the question....I was not blaming you and I for the
> acts of our ancestors at all....I want you to tell me if THEY committed
> and abomination [to use your words] by taking was was rightfully
> someone else's property [land].
The behaved wrongfully. But we do not owe the descendants of their
victims a single penny. Shit happens.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Religion can be misused no more and no less than any other institution.
Usually more than less, but other institutions can be misused as well.
That is true.
Bob Kolker
>
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>
>>
>> And I believe that is exactly the attitude the government has too. It is
>> their money, not yours, so why are you bellyaching?
>
> Every cent the government has is stolen money. Taxation is theft.
Settle down Bob, not every cent the government gets is from taxation, so
you are wrong here, in specifics as wellas being generally wrong in
principle. I personally do not mind paying taxes. I think I pay too
much, but I am happy with the police, and hospitals and armed services
highways, schools etc.
and are you implyiong that you have paid full price for each and every
thing you have ever used?
--
Shane
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2006 18:38:35 -0800, rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
>>
>>> He who smelt it, dealt it, Nasht' - but, yeah, Shane, this is kinda
>>> being a dick. There isn't a need for someone to go around and slam
>>> Nashton for every post. Nashton is self-criticising, unconsciously (or
>>> so it seems).
>>
>> I don't slam him for every post, he posts far more than I have time
>> for.
>
> Every one you see, then? :-)
No, I generally read all of them, the only people posts I automatically
skip are david ford, and just starting today, dirty2feet. So i probably
leave better than 75% of Nicky's posts well alone.
>
>> As for the need business, I somewhat disagree, if Nicky feels the
>> need to propogate lies and nonsense, should any of us stand by and
>> blithely let him to do so without some form of protest? And as Nicky
>> has shown himself to be pretty much impervious to science and reason,
>> I try another method, which surprisingly enough, seems to get through
>> to him. Go figure.
>
> Have we actually tried dignified silence? It's tremendously effective
> sometimes, and it saves bandwidth.
The silence part is easy, the real problem is conveying the dignity. :)
Let me know if you work out how to do it.
--
Shane
Shane
It's most likely a typo, try "mawkish".
John Drayton
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:47:49 -0500, it was decided that Robert J. Kolker
> should write:
>
> > nmp wrote:
> >
> >
> >> How about giving poor children a chance to go to school, so they *may*
> >> escape poverty one day?
> >
> > First I take care of mine.
>
> Except you don't, because you don't (seem to) do anything to make the
> world a better place for them to live in. If your children have a heart,
> they may someday ask you some nasty questions about that.
Not worth wasting your breath on him. He's a borderline sociopath.
You have to wonder what the fate of his "progeny" would be if they
became blind, crippled, or otherwise became a burden on him.
--
John Drayton
>
> Also, you did not answer the other question: do you have insurance, do
> you think it's a good idea, or not?
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> It's most likely a typo, try "mawkish".
Correct. Fumble fingers does it again.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You have to wonder what the fate of his "progeny" would be if they
> became blind, crippled, or otherwise became a burden on him.
I bear my cross because it is mine to bear. What I WON'T do is bear your
cross or the cross of strangers.
Bob Kolker
catshark
Why bother? You have done an excellent job yourself.
Too bad we we aren't evil enough to let everyone else treat *you* and
yours the way you'd like to treat everyone else. But then we'd be like
you <shudder>.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions
have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die
before reproducing their kind.
- Willard van Ormand Quine -
tgde...@earthlink.net
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What does that mean, "positive obligation"? Isn't helping your wife and
> > children the same kind of choice as helping anyone else? Isn't even
> > having a wife and children to whom to be obliged a choice?
>
> No, and here is why. I chose my wife. We chose to have children. I did
> not choose strangers.
Isn't that what I just said? What's the difference between choosing to
do x and choosing to enter into a contract to do x? And when you
explain that, explain about how it works with the children, since you
can't possibly have a contract with them.
-tg
>By my choices and the joint choices of my wife and
> I we have entered into a contract which we are bound to honor. The only
> contract I have with strangers is that I will not initiate a wrong
> against them. That is a negative obligation or duty. Where strangers are
> concerned I my obligations stop at do no evil.
>
> Bob Kolker
Ye Old One
<now...@nowhere.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:56:09 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <now...@nowhere.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Shackleton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>How would you propose that government function in absence of taxes?
>>>
>>>User fees and subscriptions.
>>
>>
>> Another name for taxes.
>
>Wrong. One does not have to buy the service and one can choose not to
>subscribed. Taxes are enforced.
>
Taxes should only be used for essential services - fire, police,
defence, medical, schools, looking after the old. Those are best paid
for by society as a whole.
--
Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Isn't that what I just said? What's the difference between choosing to
> do x and choosing to enter into a contract to do x? And when you
> explain that, explain about how it works with the children, since you
> can't possibly have a contract with them.
None. I have a contract with my wife and kids. I don't have a contract
with either you ro strangers that requires positive duties. I am only
constrained negatively with regard to mankind not to do harm to them if
they do not do harm or threaten to do harm to me or mine.
I deny the so-called social contract that demands positive duties from
me. I never consented to it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>>
>
> Taxes should only be used for essential services - fire, police,
> defence, medical, schools, looking after the old. Those are best paid
> for by society as a whole.
People pay taxes out of their sweat and time. Society is a reified
abstraction.
Here is some free advice. Do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes
advanced brain rot.
Bob Kolker
tgde...@earthlink.net
You haven't answered the question(s).
You say "I can do this or that with respect to strangers, but I have a
contract with my wife." If there is no difference, your statement is
meaningless. What point are you trying to get across here?
Also, you haven't explained how you have a contract with your kids.
-tg
> Bob Kolker
SilentOtto
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> mcv wrote:
>
> >
> > So you're saying that greed is actually a good thing, and that the
> > medieval church was right to be greedy?
>
> One is allowed to be greedy with one's own money, not with other
> people's money.
>
> The idea that need in and of itself constitutes a rightful claim on the
> for helping the unfortunate, such as avoiding civil conflict but there
> is no clear cut moral directive that demands that one should sacrifice
> himself for strangers. Only a Christian could come up with that one.
> That is one reason why Christianity is a very bad religion; it preaches
> Altruism. The right way is reciprocal selfishness. Mutual help and
> trade. One helps his neighbor and recieves help in return.
>
> Bob Kolker
You're wrong Bob.
And this is why you're wrong...
As soon as society places limits on one can do in order to survive,
then that society assumes a responsibility to provide for those who
cannot, for what ever reason, survive within those limits.
Survival is an absolute natural right and that right trumps all civil
and moral codes.
You might like to live you're life like a dog fighting over scraps, but
the wiser amongst us don't.
And, that is exactly where your chain of reasoning logically leads.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > Isn't that what I just said? What's the difference between choosing to
> > do x and choosing to enter into a contract to do x? And when you
> > explain that, explain about how it works with the children, since you
> > can't possibly have a contract with them.
>
> None. I have a contract with my wife and kids. I don't have a contract
> with either you ro strangers that requires positive duties. I am only
> constrained negatively with regard to mankind not to do harm to them if
> they do not do harm or threaten to do harm to me or mine.
And you grudge everyone else here using the oxygen in your atmosphere.
That's a memorable statement!
Dave
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42gfklF...@individual.net...
> David Jensen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And it does its best job protecting those who pay the most taxes.
> >
> > Anarchy is not a good alternative.
>
> A protection racket is better? Do you like being extorted and threatened?
I normally find the following response obnoxious and silly, but in this
case, I think its appropriate:
"Dont like it? Move."
You call it a protection racket. No one is forcing you to live here. Move
somewhere else. But no, you want all the benefits of living in America, but
call the duties a protection racket.
Robert J. Kolker
> meaningless. What point are you trying to get across here?
>
> Also, you haven't explained how you have a contract with your kids.
They are an undertaking, which by common law constitutes a contract. I
brought them into the world (with some help of course) so they are my
responsibility.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> cannot, for what ever reason, survive within those limits.
>
> Survival is an absolute natural right and that right trumps all civil
> and moral codes.
Good. The next time I see a starving person and I am not responsible for
his hunger I postively will not interfere with him begging food from
someone else.
I respect his right to survive. But I am not responsible for his survival.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And you grudge everyone else here using the oxygen in your atmosphere.
> That's a memorable statement!
Oxygen is a zero sum game. Less for you, more for me and mine.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I normally find the following response obnoxious and silly, but in this
> case, I think its appropriate:
>
> "Dont like it? Move."
It won't wash. I have a right to be where I am. If I move it will be for
prudential reasons, not because I have to. I do not need the permission
of the government to remain in the country where I was born.
Now it just may be that I will respond to an armed threat by giving in,
in much the same way as I would turn my wallet over to a thief. Not
because he a right to the wallet, but because he had a gun pointing at me.
Which is precisely my point.
Bob Kolker
rev.goetz
Well, your typos "excacerbate" me.
David Jensen
>SilentOtto wrote:
>
>> cannot, for what ever reason, survive within those limits.
>>
>> Survival is an absolute natural right and that right trumps all civil
>> and moral codes.
>
>Good. The next time I see a starving person and I am not responsible for
>his hunger I postively will not interfere with him begging food from
>someone else.
How do you know that you are not responsible for his hunger?