attention: sebastian

3 views
Skip to first unread message

changey

unread,
Oct 29, 2003, 4:35:40 PM10/29/03
to
so, being that government programs=stealing, will you advocate turning down
disaster relief funds from the feds when they come offer it for the
wildfires out your way?

which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out there?


Arnie

unread,
Oct 29, 2003, 4:48:50 PM10/29/03
to

"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:10674633...@jedi.vermontel.net...

I am sure some rich folk will jump at the opportunity to donate to the
relief fund...so they can get a larger tax write off.
>
>


Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Oct 30, 2003, 4:53:45 PM10/30/03
to

"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:10674633...@jedi.vermontel.net...


I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to advocate
stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for another.

I don't bend on my principals - I never advocate stealing under any
circumstances.

In this particular situation, I do feel compassion for the innocent victims
of the fires (especially considering an unconfirmed rumour that I heard
stating that one of the fires may have been arson), and I do have a little
bit of cash set aside for a *private* relief charity, but I'd never advocate
the government getting involved. As sad as this situation is, one man's
pain is not a claim check on another man's money.

This is a job for private charities, not the federal government.

You should read the Merrill Lynch Cap-Gemini report.

--
The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters, and
[he] intends to be the master. -Ayn Rand

-Der Neu Inquisitor


changey

unread,
Oct 30, 2003, 5:37:50 PM10/30/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bns1bv$153pov$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:10674633...@jedi.vermontel.net...
> > so, being that government programs=stealing, will you advocate turning
> down
> > disaster relief funds from the feds when they come offer it for the
> > wildfires out your way?
> >
> > which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out there?
>
>
> I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to advocate
> stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for
another.

why do we bother having a "NATION" then?

sorry, sebastian- you and your rich friends will never pay their fair share.
and that is an undeniable truth. if you won't give 30% of your paycheck
like the rest of us, then what the fuck makes you think that you'll be
willing to give when it isn't taxes? greed doesn't change, regardless of
who wants your money.

Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 4:06:54 AM10/31/03
to

> > > which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out there?
> >
> >
> > I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to advocate
> > stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for
> another.
>
> why do we bother having a "NATION" then?

There are plenty of reasons to have a nation, none of them include a
government that acts as a common criminal. Mob rule is not civilization and
not desireable.

> sorry, sebastian- you and your rich friends will never pay their fair
share.
> and that is an undeniable truth.


My fair share, along with the fair share of all my rich friends, added to
the fair share of every one else in the country, is 0 - absolutely nothing.
Anything that I choose to give is a generous gift at my discretion. I had
nothing to do with those fires or the people who were harmed by those fires.

The only time I owe anything to anyone is when someone gives me a product or
performs a service - that's it - I don't owe someone else's children an
education, I don't owe your grandparents prescription drugs and I don't owe
homeless people a place to live.

If ever a value is owed to someone else from me or to me from someone else,
it is an exchange, a trade - taxes, whether for education, health care or
disaster relief, are an immoral expropriation.

>if you won't give 30% of your paycheck
> like the rest of us, then what the fuck makes you think that you'll be
> willing to give when it isn't taxes?

You're right, I wouldn't be willing to give it unless I were super rich and
it took absolutely no sacrifice on my part - and even then I'd never give
30% of everything I made, I'd only give money in emergency situations(such
as these fires). The money I make is for my own personal consumption; I
don't work to keep the world alive or to take care of my fellow man or to
feed the homeless or to educate your children or any other cause as such - I
work to provide myself with my ends of happiness and survival (which, as a
human who has interpersonal relationships, this would include taking care of
family members or friends in trouble).

And again, you're absolutely right, most people (sane people) wouldn't
voluntarily give up 30%...or even 15% of their paychecks, or even any fixed
amount monthly - and rightly so - man exists for himself, not as your
machine working for any cause greater than himself - there is no cause
greater than one's own being. You have no right to demand that I give what I
earn away.

My individual rights are not up for grabs anytime something goes wrong with
the world


>greed doesn't change,

As it never should. The things that have had the greatest and best impact
for all - rich, poor, middle and anything in-between - have been done by
"evil, greedy bastards" who "cared about nothing but money"; cars, medicine,
water purification, steam engines, mass power supply, the light bulb, etc,
etc - everything that has made life easier, and a good life more accessible,
have been done by people working selfishly in their own interest, everything
that keeps us healthier and living longer was invented by man working for
himself. Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
Alexander Fleming?

Of course, the fact that selfishness and the division of labour inevitably
benefits all and brings the standard of living up for the general population
is the secondary consequence and not the moral justification of egoism.

Seriously, it's time you step out of the emo box and start using your head.

Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled greed, such
as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended against
your own government's desire to expel him), Jozef Stalin or Fidel Castro -
greed that calls to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get to the top - and there
is the greed practiced by men such as Kirk Kirkorian, Donald Trump or
myself - the greed that calls to *earn* your way to the top for your own
sake and not at anyone else's expense.

Greedy men like me do not violate other people's rights - we simply fight
against the burden that men like you try to impose on us. Without men like
me to produce, you'd have no one to steal from.

A couple Adam Smith quotes:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that
we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests."

"I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
public good."

In short: greed is good. If it wasn't for the greed of men like me, you'd
have no house, car, lights, laundry, roads or...well, nothing, you'd have
nother other than what you yourself built with your own two hands, and
neither would I or anyone else. Greed + division of labour + individual
rights = higher standards of living.


>regardless of
> who wants your money.

The only way that you can hold that stand is by creating false stereotypes
about men and then working off of those models as if they were fact not to
be questioned.

Not all rich people are the same just as not all poor people are the same.
There are men out there who's primary concern is money and there are men out
there who's primary concern is their family or their car or any number of
different things. No two people - rich or poor- have the same exact value
system. I'd be willing to bet that most people value their loved ones more
than they value their money.
I know that for myself, money pales in comparison to what Ana means to me,
or my mother, father, etc (hence why I just spent half of my monthly funds
to pay for her birthday presents and birthday dinner). But yes, 30% of my
money is more important to me than people I don't know or have anything to
do with.

Try all you want, you can't make me feel guilty about it. Like I said, I
don't buy your altruism, I don't buy your sacrifice as virtuous garbage, it
doesn't make any sense to me and it never did because it's simply illogical.

My moral basis is to live a good life, be happy, don't sacrifice yourself or
others - yours is the opposite, and I don't buy any philosophy that tells me
that suffering and sacrificing my happiness is the good.

Read carefully this time: I am selfish and I am proud - I don't sacrifice
myself under any circumstances and I don't sacrifice anyone else - it is not
my job, or any other person's job, regardless of income status, to take care
of anyone else - I am an individual with the individual rights to my life,
my property and the pursuit of my happiness - no parasite has the right to
what I earn by trade; I don't owe anyone anything. While you may have the
power of the gun on your side to enforce your agenda, you are in the wrong
to steal from me, and I am in the right to stand up against you. Of course,
my weapon is the mind and yours is the gun.

To quote Anthem:

"I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am
the warrant and the sanction."

Mark Shea

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 4:26:26 AM10/31/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> Alexander Fleming?

1. Depends on your context.

2. You, of all people, asking about such a difficult-to-pin-down ideal as
'positive impact on the world' is a little odd.

Mark Shea


Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 4:31:22 AM10/31/03
to

"Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnt9sh$14e03s$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...

Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?

alakaheem

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 4:56:21 AM10/31/03
to
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:06:54 -0800, "Der Neu Inquisitor"
<nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> > > which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out there?
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to advocate
>> > stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for
>> another.
>>
>> why do we bother having a "NATION" then?
>
>There are plenty of reasons to have a nation, none of them include a
>government that acts as a common criminal. Mob rule is not civilization and
>not desireable.

I really don't understand, from your worldview, why.

Sure, there'd be need to have a local government- to stop people from
stealing and murdering others.

But what is the point of a national government? To protect us from
foreign powers? Under your worldview of a tax-free society, couldn't
some private organization - perhaps the NRA - step up and take
donations to fend off foreign threats? Surely - assuming your world
view- the war in Iraq - which you so adamantly supported - would only
have been possible with the donations of corporate sponsors and
private citizens.

So... What is the point of a national centralized government at all?
Why not have people just donate money to a private organization to
protect us and go to war for us? After all, as you've often said,
private enterprise works best and without taxes and tariffs, any sort
of government is going to have a difficult time supporting itself in
times of apparent peace. The best pure capitalist option would be to
have several private protection companies competing for our protection
with variances in the nuances of foreign policy and overall tax- er, I
mean, 'fee', burden.

-alakaheem

Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 5:18:34 AM10/31/03
to

"alakaheem" <alak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ob4qv0jindjd6fi4...@4ax.com...

Here's a scenario:

You're my neighbor and I catch you breaking into my house one night, I call
my private security force and they come only to meet your private security
force that you called in the mean time. Mine says "We're here to arrest
alakheem" and yours says "we're not going to let you arrest him". Then
what?

What you're talking about is essentially anarchy - it's gang rule - who ever
has the most money or the biggest gang wins; any one gang can claim that one
thing is or isn't a law at their arbitrary whim, when ever it suits them and
for any purpose (not much different from pure democracy, actually).

There needs to be a government to enforce objectively defined laws and keep
order. A system such as the one you've described would quickly fall apart.

A competing national government would be nothing but pure democracy in
action, i.e. pressure groups and lobbies (not very much unlike what we have
now, except war would be the only issue on the ballot).

alakaheem

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 6:04:06 AM10/31/03
to
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:18:34 -0800, "Der Neu Inquisitor"
<nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>You're my neighbor and I catch you breaking into my house one night, I call
>my private security force and they come only to meet your private security
>force that you called in the mean time. Mine says "We're here to arrest
>alakheem" and yours says "we're not going to let you arrest him". Then
>what?
>
>What you're talking about is essentially anarchy - it's gang rule - who ever
>has the most money or the biggest gang wins; any one gang can claim that one
>thing is or isn't a law at their arbitrary whim, when ever it suits them and
>for any purpose (not much different from pure democracy, actually).

Exactly. The gang who has the most money wins. I don't see how that is
any different than your purported utopia. And basically, you've come
full circle to fight for the "little guys" as the socialists
purportedly do. How is a government - that doesn't have the benefit of
garnering the wages from everyone - supposed to regulate a 'gang', or
for fun let's call it a 'corporation', that has more money and better
organisation than it?

Why do we need a national government? Who should deal with so-called
"outside" threats? While the atrocities of 9-11 were horrific, most of
the people seriously effected by mass-terrorism crimes were those of
large cities. Why should I, a person in a small rural town, subscribe
to the same defense policy as that of New York and LA? Mob rule? As a
purely selfish person, I would rather hire a protection company who
was more concerned about bioterrorism of the local crops than the
mass-terrorism as seen in New York. Surely, NY and LA and all those
other large cities would have their flank covered - well, as much as
it really matters by objectivist standards - by similar protection
agencies who were more concerned with incidents of mass homicide
terrorism. Surely, private enterprise would be better at fighting
terrorism and other threats than the pork barrell bureacracy of the
CIA, FBI and Pentagon.

This way even more people would be liberated to choose the who, what,
when, where, and why of personal protection. You, on the other hand,
want to bring everyone under 'mob rule' of who is a threat and who
isn't.

>
>There needs to be a government to enforce objectively defined laws and keep
>order. A system such as the one you've described would quickly fall apart.
>
>A competing national government would be nothing but pure democracy in
>action, i.e. pressure groups and lobbies (not very much unlike what we have
>now, except war would be the only issue on the ballot).

But doesn't private enterprise work better? If those who are willing
to give money should dictate the terms of how the fires in So.
California are fought, why shouldn't those with money dictate how we
are protected from more worldly threats?

How would a national government without the support of taxes and
tariffs be able to enforce any sort of domestic, nonetheless foreign,
policy? I guess it would really be subject to the whims of those
willing to give money, and at that point, is it really a democracy or
an oligarchy/corporation?

-alakaheem

guidie chipy thingy

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 7:28:30 AM10/31/03
to

nice one avoiding the war financing question here.


changey

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 8:35:48 AM10/31/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> > > > which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out
there?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to advocate
> > > stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for
> > another.
> >
> > why do we bother having a "NATION" then?
>
> There are plenty of reasons to have a nation, none of them include a
> government that acts as a common criminal.

get your terms right. the government is acting by the rules, therefore they
are not criminals. your use of inflammatory terms is convenient, i agree,
but far from the truth.

> Mob rule is not civilization and
> not desireable.

mob rule is hardly what is going on here. in order for mob rule, crowds of
citizens must be in charge. in this country, the cries of the
underprivileged and thus alienated are ignored.


>
> > sorry, sebastian- you and your rich friends will never pay their fair
> share.
> > and that is an undeniable truth.
>
>
> My fair share, along with the fair share of all my rich friends, added to
> the fair share of every one else in the country, is 0 - absolutely
nothing.

then i'll kindly ask you to stay off MY roads.


> Anything that I choose to give is a generous gift at my discretion. I had
> nothing to do with those fires or the people who were harmed by those
fires.

and you'd let thousands of people live in the streets because of it. thank
god the rest of the country doesn't feel like you do.


>
> The only time I owe anything to anyone is when someone gives me a product
or
> performs a service - that's it - I don't owe someone else's children an
> education,

of course you don't. i mean, raising intelligent children couldn't possibly
benefit your nation.

> I don't owe your grandparents prescription drugs and I don't owe
> homeless people a place to live.

that's right. let 'em die. they aren't giving you any money anyway. and
we all know that money is more important than life.

again, stay the fuck off MY roads, off MY public transportation, and out of
MY hospitals.

>
> My individual rights are not up for grabs anytime something goes wrong
with
> the world

would you help pull someone out of a firey car wreck? or would the prospect
of getting soot on your prada handbag keep you away as the person screamed
for help?

"sorry, mr dying man, i don't have to help you. i'm wearing my GOOD shoes
today."


>
>
> >greed doesn't change,
>
> As it never should. The things that have had the greatest and best impact
> for all - rich, poor, middle and anything in-between - have been done by
> "evil, greedy bastards" who "cared about nothing but money"; cars,

pollution

> medicine,

which by your standards shouldn't help anyone that isn't worth 70,000 a
year.

> water purification,

yeah, there's tons of money in giving villages in africa pure water.

> steam engines,

ah the beginning of the pollution revolution

> mass power supply, the light bulb, etc,
> etc - everything that has made life easier,

more stressful, you mean

>and a good life more accessible,
> have been done by people working selfishly in their own interest,
everything
> that keeps us healthier and living longer was invented by man working for
> himself. Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> Alexander Fleming?

who is he?

>
> Of course, the fact that selfishness and the division of labour inevitably
> benefits all and brings the standard of living up for the general
population
> is the secondary consequence and not the moral justification of egoism.

tell me again how PVC's dumped in the river brings the standard of living
up?

>
> Seriously, it's time you step out of the emo box and start using your
head.

no, it's time to take your head out of your wallet and see that a bit of
compassion goes much further than a piece of paper with only imagined value.


>
> Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled greed, such
> as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended
against
> your own government's desire to expel him)

quote me, cockstain.

>, Jozef Stalin or Fidel Castro -
> greed that calls to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get to the top - and
there
> is the greed practiced by men such as Kirk Kirkorian, Donald Trump or
> myself - the greed that calls to *earn* your way to the top for your own
> sake and not at anyone else's expense.

those guys certainly have not gotten rich without stepping on the backs of
the poor. get your head out of your ass.

>
> Greedy men like me do not violate other people's rights - we simply fight
> against the burden that men like you try to impose on us. Without men
like
> me to produce, you'd have no one to steal from.

excuse me? i pay my taxes. i steal from nobody. people like you on the
other hand, make us poor people pay your way via the military.

>
> A couple Adam Smith quotes:

who?

>
> "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker
that
> we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests."
>
> "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
> public good."
>
> In short: greed is good. If it wasn't for the greed of men like me, you'd
> have no house, car, lights, laundry, roads or...well, nothing, you'd have
> nother other than what you yourself built with your own two hands, and
> neither would I or anyone else. Greed + division of labour + individual
> rights = higher standards of living.

to a point. it goes much farther than that.

>
>
> >regardless of
> > who wants your money.
>
> The only way that you can hold that stand is by creating false stereotypes
> about men and then working off of those models as if they were fact not to
> be questioned.
>
> Not all rich people are the same just as not all poor people are the same.
> There are men out there who's primary concern is money and there are men
out
> there who's primary concern is their family or their car or any number of
> different things. No two people - rich or poor- have the same exact value
> system. I'd be willing to bet that most people value their loved ones more
> than they value their money.

not you, i bet.

> I know that for myself, money pales in comparison to what Ana means to me,

that's touching. i bet if she ran over a family of poor people, you'd be
right there to tell her it isn't her responsibility to pay for their medical
bills.


> or my mother, father, etc (hence why I just spent half of my monthly funds
> to pay for her birthday presents and birthday dinner).

your dad is female?

> But yes, 30% of my
> money is more important to me than people I don't know or have anything to
> do with.
>
> Try all you want, you can't make me feel guilty about it.

of course you won't.

>Like I said, I
> don't buy your altruism, I don't buy your sacrifice as virtuous garbage,
it
> doesn't make any sense to me and it never did because it's simply
illogical.
>
> My moral basis is to live a good life, be happy, don't sacrifice yourself
or
> others - yours is the opposite, and I don't buy any philosophy that tells
me
> that suffering and sacrificing my happiness is the good.
>
> Read carefully this time: I am selfish and I am proud - I don't sacrifice
> myself under any circumstances and I don't sacrifice anyone else - it is
not
> my job, or any other person's job, regardless of income status, to take
care
> of anyone else - I am an individual with the individual rights to my life,
> my property and the pursuit of my happiness - no parasite has the right to
> what I earn by trade; I don't owe anyone anything. While you may have the
> power of the gun on your side to enforce your agenda, you are in the wrong
> to steal from me, and I am in the right to stand up against you. Of
course,
> my weapon is the mind

you mean "my weapon is a piece of paper with a dead president on it"


>and yours is the gun.

for fucking once, back this shit up. what you speak is libelous. the only
reason the world is like it is today is because the rich like you use the
military to enforce YOUR standards around the world. i advocate ending the
military role in politics and aggression on foreign soil. you stand behind
the military because your politicians tell you money is worth more than
life. fuck this one culture bullshit you advocate. you are a disgrace to
your heritage.


>
> To quote Anthem:
>
> "I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am
> the warrant and the sanction."

to quote Warrant

"She's my cherry pie."


changey

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 8:36:33 AM10/31/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnta7u$155rn3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnt9sh$14e03s$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> > > Alexander Fleming?
> >
> > 1. Depends on your context.
> >
> > 2. You, of all people, asking about such a difficult-to-pin-down ideal
as
> > 'positive impact on the world' is a little odd.
>
> Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?

who did it without thinking of themselves?

i don't know this a fleming guy, but i think MT is more deserving of
applause.

Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 4:50:24 PM10/31/03
to

"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:10676073...@jedi.vermontel.net...

>
> "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnta7u$155rn3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bnt9sh$14e03s$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > > Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> > > > Alexander Fleming?
> > >
> > > 1. Depends on your context.
> > >
> > > 2. You, of all people, asking about such a difficult-to-pin-down ideal
> as
> > > 'positive impact on the world' is a little odd.
> >
> > Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?
>
> who did it without thinking of themselves?
>
> i don't know this a fleming guy, but i think MT is more deserving of
> applause.
>

LOLOLL!!!!!

Holy fuck, Changey, that may be the funniest thing you've ever said in your
life.

You're right, mother Teresa probably wasn't thinking that much of her self,
and she also didn't get that much done. Fleming on the other hand...well,
I'll let you look him up yourself. Chances are he's saved your life a few
times.

Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 12:28:03 AM11/1/03
to

"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:10676073...@jedi.vermontel.net...

>
> "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnta7u$155rn3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?
>
> who did it without thinking of themselves?
>
> i don't know this a fleming guy, but i think MT is more deserving of
> applause.

Oh FFS...

Google, boy.

Mark Shea


Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 12:45:10 AM11/1/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnta7u$155rn3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnt9sh$14e03s$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> > > Alexander Fleming?
> >
> > 1. Depends on your context.
> >
> > 2. You, of all people, asking about such a difficult-to-pin-down ideal
as
> > 'positive impact on the world' is a little odd.
>
> Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?

Now you sound like a preference utilitarian. You want to somehow enumerate
the value of their lives and multiply them by how many lives there are?

I wonder which admired the other?

Mark Shea


changey

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:46:22 AM11/1/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnulhm$165j2g$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:10676073...@jedi.vermontel.net...
> >
> > "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bnta7u$155rn3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bnt9sh$14e03s$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > > Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> > > > > Alexander Fleming?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Depends on your context.
> > > >
> > > > 2. You, of all people, asking about such a difficult-to-pin-down
ideal
> > as
> > > > 'positive impact on the world' is a little odd.
> > >
> > > Ok, we'll go on simple statistics. Who saved more lives?
> >
> > who did it without thinking of themselves?
> >
> > i don't know this a fleming guy, but i think MT is more deserving of
> > applause.
> >
>
> LOLOLL!!!!!
>
> Holy fuck, Changey, that may be the funniest thing you've ever said in
your
> life.

yeah, simply hilarious. you don't get out much. because i don't know about
someone you know about must be side splittingly funny.

>
> You're right, mother Teresa probably wasn't thinking that much of her
self,
> and she also didn't get that much done.

she had the vatican bank funding her work. sure she was poor, but she did
more for the world than you will ever do. unless you are talking rape.
then you will certainly do more.


> Fleming on the other hand...well,
> I'll let you look him up yourself.


i did. pretty impressive.

> Chances are he's saved your life a few
> times.
>

by jove, i think you're right!1 here's a cookie.

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 3:31:52 PM11/1/03
to
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:50:24 -0800, "Der Neu Inquisitor"
<nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>LOLOLL!!!!!
>
>Holy fuck, Changey, that may be the funniest thing you've ever said in your
>life.
>
>You're right, mother Teresa probably wasn't thinking that much of her self,
>and she also didn't get that much done. Fleming on the other hand...well,
>I'll let you look him up yourself. Chances are he's saved your life a few
>times.


I think this leads to a dangerous view of science.

If we're going to attribute Fleming with saving the lives of people
who benefitted from an application of his scientific work, should we
similarly attribute Einstein (or Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
Heisenburg, etc) with the deaths of the people who were victims of an
application of his scientific work?

-alakaheem

Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 12:05:53 AM11/2/03
to

"alakaheem" <alak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m748qvctnb20n9d6b...@4ax.com...

> I think this leads to a dangerous view of science.
>
> If we're going to attribute Fleming with saving the lives of people
> who benefitted from an application of his scientific work, should we
> similarly attribute Einstein (or Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
> Heisenburg, etc) with the deaths of the people who were victims of an
> application of his scientific work?

That's an amazingly good point.

Mark Shea


Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 12:59:30 AM11/2/03
to
>Subject: Re: attention: sebastian
>From: "Mark Shea" zad...@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/2/03 12:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bo23bh$16qa1q$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de>

that's giving them far too much credit isn't it mark?

"My thoughts on society today".

perhaps they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

mike

Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 4:55:57 AM11/2/03
to

"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20031102005930...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: attention: sebastian
> >From: "Mark Shea" zad...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 11/2/03 12:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <bo23bh$16qa1q$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de>
> >
> >
> >"alakaheem" <alak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:m748qvctnb20n9d6b...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I think this leads to a dangerous view of science.
> >>
> >> If we're going to attribute Fleming with saving the lives of people
> >> who benefitted from an application of his scientific work, should we
> >> similarly attribute Einstein (or Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
> >> Heisenburg, etc) with the deaths of the people who were victims of an
> >> application of his scientific work?
> >
> >That's an amazingly good point.
>
> that's giving them far too much credit isn't it mark?
>
> "My thoughts on society today".
>
> perhaps they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And, incidentally, I think you *missed* the point.

Mark Shea


Li Han

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 6:57:53 PM11/2/03
to

"alakaheem" <alak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m748qvctnb20n9d6b...@4ax.com...

Don't expect a responce from Inquisitor, he's right now wishing this post
didn't happen. But sadly you won't change anything, cos he'll use the same
argument in another thread and just hope that you're not around.


Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 8:09:35 PM11/2/03
to
>And, incidentally, I think you *missed* the point.
>
>Mark Shea

what point?

someone did something good with science, someone did something bad with it.

so what? i mean really, is it relevant to the topic at hand?

it's like some guy saving a bus full of people because the driver was having a
heart attact, then following it up with "drunk drivers kill X amount of people
every year".

so what? it's irrelevant


Li Han

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 8:35:19 PM11/2/03
to

"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20031102200935...@mb-m25.aol.com...

Are you even reading the same thread as the rest of us?


Mike Smith

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 9:59:13 PM11/2/03
to
alakaheem wrote:
>
> I think this leads to a dangerous view of science.
>
> If we're going to attribute Fleming with saving the lives of people
> who benefitted from an application of his scientific work, should we
> similarly attribute Einstein (or Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
> Heisenburg, etc) with the deaths of the people who were victims of an
> application of his scientific work?

Well, that depends - are we also going to credit these men for all the
people whose lives have been made better by their work, as well?

--
Mike Smith

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 10:06:27 PM11/2/03
to
On 03 Nov 2003 01:09:35 GMT, smagma...@aol.communism (Smagmapig333)
wrote:

>>And, incidentally, I think you *missed* the point.
>>
>>Mark Shea
>
>what point?
>
>someone did something good with science, someone did something bad with it.

You're losing credibility here because you're either, accidentally or
otherwise, refusing to acknowledge the crux of my argument.

Yes, part of the argument is that 'someone did something good with
science, someone did something bad with it. ' but the major part of it
is, 'should scientists be held accountable for what other people do
with the scientific knowledge that helped create?'

>so what? i mean really, is it relevant to the topic at hand?

Sebastian says that because Fleming did some scientific research that
led to an application that saved a lot of people's lives, we should
attribute those saved lives to Fleming himself. I take issue with
that. It's completely relevant and either your news server is missing
some posts or you're being obtuse.

>
>it's like some guy saving a bus full of people because the driver was having a
>heart attact, then following it up with "drunk drivers kill X amount of people
>every year".

No, not really. Your analogy isn't congruent because, from start to
finish, you refused to give a fair account of my argument.

>
>so what? it's irrelevant

-alakaheem

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 10:11:02 PM11/2/03
to
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:59:13 -0500, Mike Smith
<mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
>Well, that depends - are we also going to credit these men for all the
>people whose lives have been made better by their work, as well?

Sure. I don't think, however, they (or I guess in most instances,
their ancestors) would appreciate the overall implications.

-alakaheem


Li Han

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 10:22:18 PM11/2/03
to

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:vqbh3vc...@news.supernews.com...

Of course.


Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 5:16:18 PM11/3/03
to
>Subject: Re: attention: sebastian
>From: alakaheem alak...@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/2/2003 10:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <v9gbqv8gq4c5i66hl...@4ax.com>

>
>On 03 Nov 2003 01:09:35 GMT, smagma...@aol.communism (Smagmapig333)
>wrote:
>
>>>And, incidentally, I think you *missed* the point.
>>>
>>>Mark Shea
>>
>>what point?
>>
>>someone did something good with science, someone did something bad with it.
>
>You're losing credibility here because you're either, accidentally or
>otherwise, refusing to acknowledge the crux of my argument.
>
>Yes, part of the argument is that 'someone did something good with
>science, someone did something bad with it. ' but the major part of it
>is, 'should scientists be held accountable for what other people do
>with the scientific knowledge that helped create?'

nobody stated anything otherwise.

or did i miss the post in which someone said Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
Heisenburg are not accountable for the scientific research they have done?

btw you forgot Szilard.

i'd say they aknowledged it themselves:

"The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of
thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe". -Albert Einstein-

Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 2:59:13 AM11/4/03
to

"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20031102200935...@mb-m25.aol.com...

> >And, incidentally, I think you *missed* the point.
>
> what point?

Two of them. You missed the point I made a while back about technological
advance being a large part luck, and when you made examples of humans being
cool, you didn't reply to my point that humans spent about 100k years
*eating berries and shrubs and so forth* and didn't notice the whole seeds
thing.

The point in this thread is whether blame for *any* consequences of the use
of technology is attributable to the either the scientist who discovers the
principles that it uses, or other scientists and engineers who build it.

> someone did something good with science, someone did something bad with
it.
>
> so what? i mean really, is it relevant to the topic at hand?

DNI pointed to Alexander Fleming as a 'better' person than Mother Theresa.
It's just up there somewhere.

Mark Shea


alakaheem

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 4:47:49 AM11/4/03
to
On 03 Nov 2003 22:16:18 GMT, smagma...@aol.communism (Smagmapig333)
wrote:

Let me begin by thanking you for tacitly deciding that my argument has
attained 'relevance'. Mom will be so proud.

>>
>>Yes, part of the argument is that 'someone did something good with
>>science, someone did something bad with it. ' but the major part of it
>>is, 'should scientists be held accountable for what other people do
>>with the scientific knowledge that helped create?'
>
>nobody stated anything otherwise.

That's why it was posed as a question, sir. You know, to instigate
further discussion?

>
>or did i miss the post in which someone said Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohr, Seaborg,
>Heisenburg are not accountable for the scientific research they have done?

Again. It was a question. Let's not act like it's a forgone conclusion
to think of all these scientists as being responsible for numerous
many deaths, ecological disasters, and the terror induced by the
nuclear buildup during the cold war. At least, that's certainly not
the way they're portrayed.

>
>btw you forgot Szilard.

I said 'etc' :P

>
>i'd say they aknowledged it themselves:
>
>"The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of
>thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe". -Albert Einstein-

While Einstein was very concerned about the implications of his work,
I never have read anything by him that suggested he believed he should
be held responsible for all the subsequent ills of the implications of
introducing e=mc^2. Nor should he be, in my opinion. Knowledge is a
double-edged sword and the subsequent consequences of the discovery of
knowledge should only be attributed to those who wield that sword.

--alakaheem

Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 8:33:51 PM11/4/03
to
>Subject: Re: attention: sebastian
>From: alakaheem alak...@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/4/2003 4:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <7p1eqvk3u56d9ekvb...@4ax.com>

>
>On 03 Nov 2003 22:16:18 GMT, smagma...@aol.communism (Smagmapig333)
>wrote:
>
>Let me begin by thanking you for tacitly deciding that my argument has
>attained 'relevance'. Mom will be so proud.
>
>>>
>>>Yes, part of the argument is that 'someone did something good with
>>>science, someone did something bad with it. ' but the major part of it
>>>is, 'should scientists be held accountable for what other people do
>>>with the scientific knowledge that helped create?'
>>
>>nobody stated anything otherwise.
>
>That's why it was posed as a question, sir. You know, to instigate
>further discussion?

yes you did. it recieved the response "That's an amazingly good point". when in
fact it was just a question.

my mistake.

so... what is your take on that? to what extent, and under what circumstances
should the scientist recieve credit?

you said "Knowledge is a


double-edged sword and the subsequent consequences of the discovery of
knowledge should only be attributed to those who wield that sword".

would you classify the discovery of the use of antibiotics as a "sword"?

in the case of eintstein/szilard, einstein brought up the possibilities of the
uses of nuclear physics. einstein didn't however continue to work on that
particular project, he only pointed out the possible uses.

how much credit shall he recieve?

mike

TobiasPhoneFuck

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 10:20:33 PM11/4/03
to
>yes you did. it recieved the response "That's an amazingly good point". when
>in
>fact it was just a question.
>
>my mistake.
>
>so... what is your take on that? to what extent, and under what
>circumstances
>should the scientist recieve credit?
>
>you said "Knowledge is a
>double-edged sword and the subsequent consequences of the discovery of
>knowledge should only be attributed to those who wield that sword".
>
>would you classify the discovery of the use of antibiotics as a "sword"?
>
>in the case of eintstein/szilard, einstein brought up the possibilities of
>the
>uses of nuclear physics. einstein didn't however continue to work on that
>particular project, he only pointed out the possible uses.
>
>how much credit shall he recieve?
>
>mike

Shut the fuck up you shallow maggot shit. Stop visiting sites then coming
back pretending to be smart.

Baxter - TM. Coka Cola

~" Yoshimi, they don't believe me. "~

Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 11:37:09 PM11/4/03
to
>
> Shut the fuck up you shallow maggot shit. Stop visiting sites then coming
>back pretending to be smart.
>
> Baxter - TM. Coka Cola

you stalk dudes...

need i say more?

TobiasPhoneFuck

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 11:49:25 PM11/4/03
to
>you stalk dudes...
>
>need i say more?

Wow. You have totally taken me down. Your reminder of more of alli's lies
have made me so close to nothing. I am leaving here and never coming back. It's
like i have seen the light or something.

Oh, and in the future, don't get mad just because someone called you on who
you really are, hypocrite.

Baxter - TM. Coka Cola

~" Yoshimi, they don't believe me. "~

Der Neu Inquisitor

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 12:34:51 AM11/5/03
to

----- Original Message -----
From: "changey" <n...@no.com>
Newsgroups: alt.music.tool
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: attention: sebastian


>
> "Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bnt8q2$14jhk3$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > > > which one of your rich friends is going to dig deep to help out
> there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I have many rich friends, and yes, I refuse to
advocate
> > > > stealing from one section of the population to provide benefits for
> > > another.
> > >
> > > why do we bother having a "NATION" then?
> >
> > There are plenty of reasons to have a nation, none of them include a
> > government that acts as a common criminal.
>
> get your terms right. the government is acting by the rules, therefore
they
> are not criminals. your use of inflammatory terms is convenient, i agree,
> but far from the truth.

Jim Crow would be proud of you. The government is acting on rules that
impose unrewarded and un-asked-for duties on the population. The government
had no right to impose welfare, medicare, etc, on the population; the
government had no right to violate my rights, I am not property of the
state. The government now has the power, thanks to the left, to create any
rule it wants to - and I guess by your previous statement as long as it's a
rule in writing it's ok to practice.

> > Mob rule is not civilization and
> > not desireable.
>
> mob rule is hardly what is going on here. in order for mob rule, crowds
of
> citizens must be in charge. in this country, the cries of the
> underprivileged and thus alienated are ignored.

Mob rule in this context is used to describe pressure groups lobbying in
washington, each one promosing to spend someone else's money on a "better
cause".

>
> >
> > > sorry, sebastian- you and your rich friends will never pay their fair
> > share.
> > > and that is an undeniable truth.
> >
> >
> > My fair share, along with the fair share of all my rich friends, added
to
> > the fair share of every one else in the country, is 0 - absolutely
> nothing.
>
> then i'll kindly ask you to stay off MY roads.

I advocate private ownership of roads, as you well know. The system has
been set up to impose a duty on me to pay for roads. I would gladly pay a
toll to drive on a road if a businessman owned it.

>
> > Anything that I choose to give is a generous gift at my discretion. I
had
> > nothing to do with those fires or the people who were harmed by those
> fires.
>
> and you'd let thousands of people live in the streets because of it.
thank
> god the rest of the country doesn't feel like you do.

Let? Just just you let thousands of young south american children die
everyday from malnutrition? Just like you let thousands of people die from
AIDS in India every day? Couldn't you be there right now washing the lepors
off of little kid's arms? Can't you live without your DSL and instead give
that money to charity? Do you really need a house? I mean, couldn't you
live in a shack and do without a computer, car or electricity?

Let? It's not my place, job, duty, or responsibillty to take care of people
that I don't know and most likely will never know. Every man's life is his
own responsibillity to plan for and to rationally, not whimsically, live.

However, emergency situations, like these fires, are the only times that I
advocate charity. I have no problem with, and encourage that man help his
fellow man in times of emergency

>
> >
> > The only time I owe anything to anyone is when someone gives me a
product
> or
> > performs a service - that's it - I don't owe someone else's children an
> > education,
>
> of course you don't. i mean, raising intelligent children couldn't
possibly
> benefit your nation.

Check your premises - is my concern the good of the common or the good of
myself? The fact of the matter is that under a privatized education system
a very large majority of children would still get to go to school, middle
and upper class private schools would far surpass middle and upper class
modern public schools and the lower class private schools would be shitty
just like the lower class public schools are now - main difference is the
fact that I'm not going to be paying for a service that I'm not using.

I state again: I do not owe someone else's children an education.


> > I don't owe your grandparents prescription drugs and I don't owe
> > homeless people a place to live.
>
> that's right. let 'em die. they aren't giving you any money anyway. and
> we all know that money is more important than life.

A statement such as that illustrates that you have no idea what money
represents or what the source of money is.

Yes, let them die or attempt to survive off of private charity (or god
forbid......plan for their futures when they're young. Gasp!)

I state again: I do not owe your grandparents medical attention or homeless


people a place to live.

>
> >

I only use private hospitals, I'd walk before I used public transportation
and, like I said, I'm all for paying to use a privatized road system.

> >
> > My individual rights are not up for grabs anytime something goes wrong
> with
> > the world
>
> would you help pull someone out of a firey car wreck? or would the
prospect
> of getting soot on your prada handbag keep you away as the person screamed
> for help?

Prada? Please, I wear Gian Franco Ferre, I don't like French designers, and
I don't have a hand bag.

To answer your question:
The variable and deciding factor is the danger to my own life. If there is
a risk of personal death from saving the life of someone whom I don't know
from a firey car wreck, then that person is most likely going to die in a
firey car wreck. By what irrational standard would I be resting on if I
killed myself to save someone that I didn't know? Of course, I never would
expect someone to sacrifice their life to save me from that type of
situation.

If the only danger to myself is my Gian Franco Ferre shoes, then of course
I'd save the person.

To expand, if it were Ana in that car I'd be over there pulling her out - no
variables involved.

> "sorry, mr dying man, i don't have to help you. i'm wearing my GOOD shoes
> today."
>
>
> >
> >
> > >greed doesn't change,
> >
> > As it never should. The things that have had the greatest and best
impact
> > for all - rich, poor, middle and anything in-between - have been done by
> > "evil, greedy bastards" who "cared about nothing but money"; cars,
>
> pollution

ummm...honestly, do you really think that cars never should have been
invented because of pollution? Of course pollution is a problem, but the
amount of good that cars have done far surpasses the bad.

> > medicine,
>
> which by your standards shouldn't help anyone that isn't worth 70,000 a
> year.

blah blah blah.

> > water purification,
>
> yeah, there's tons of money in giving villages in africa pure water.

There's no market for water purification in africa. However, my home town
of boulder colorado had great usage for it.

> > steam engines,
>
> ah the beginning of the pollution revolution
>
> > mass power supply, the light bulb, etc,
> > etc - everything that has made life easier,
>
> more stressful, you mean

Please, for fucks sake, get the fuck out of my country and live in the
fucking arctic - you'll never have to deal with a stressful luxury ever
again, I promise.

> >and a good life more accessible,
> > have been done by people working selfishly in their own interest,
> everything
> > that keeps us healthier and living longer was invented by man working
for
> > himself. Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa or
> > Alexander Fleming?
>
> who is he?
>
> >
> > Of course, the fact that selfishness and the division of labour
inevitably
> > benefits all and brings the standard of living up for the general
> population
> > is the secondary consequence and not the moral justification of egoism.
>
> tell me again how PVC's dumped in the river brings the standard of living
> up?

Are you telling me that the standard of living for all classes in all
countries that had a capitalist base isn't higher than it was
pre-capitalism?

I really wish you'd move to one of your socialist havens, I hear that China
is accepting citizenship right now.

> >
> > Seriously, it's time you step out of the emo box and start using your
> head.
>
> no, it's time to take your head out of your wallet and see that a bit of
> compassion goes much further than a piece of paper with only imagined
value.

Compassion is fine - self sacrifice is not.

>
> >
> > Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled greed,
such
> > as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended
> against
> > your own government's desire to expel him)
>
> quote me, cockstain.

You were for keeping him in power, were you not?

> >, Jozef Stalin or Fidel Castro -
> > greed that calls to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get to the top - and
> there
> > is the greed practiced by men such as Kirk Kirkorian, Donald Trump or
> > myself - the greed that calls to *earn* your way to the top for your own
> > sake and not at anyone else's expense.
>
> those guys certainly have not gotten rich without stepping on the backs of
> the poor. get your head out of your ass.

Prove it.

> >
> > Greedy men like me do not violate other people's rights - we simply
fight
> > against the burden that men like you try to impose on us. Without men
> like
> > me to produce, you'd have no one to steal from.
>
> excuse me? i pay my taxes. i steal from nobody.

You advocate that everyone else be stolen from as well.

people like you on the
> other hand, make us poor people pay your way via the military.

I don't agree with military taxation and you know this.

> >
> > A couple Adam Smith quotes:
>
> who?

Ok...ummm, this is the last post of yours that I respond to..

You loose.


> > I know that for myself, money pales in comparison to what Ana means to
me,
>
> that's touching. i bet if she ran over a family of poor people, you'd be
> right there to tell her it isn't her responsibility to pay for their
medical
> bills.

More libel. Fucking please, Pat, I've stated many times that justice
applies to all, if Ana ran over
any one of course she should have to pay for it, both monitarilly and
probably time spent in jail. You have no valid reason to make such a
statement as that -you're the one who lets your "emotions mix with logic",
remember?

Which is a direct product of the human mind.

>
> >and yours is the gun.
>
> for fucking once, back this shit up. what you speak is libelous.

You advocate that the government initiate force against it's citizens by
taking money from them - this is called stealing, and you can't steal
without the threat of physical force.


the only
> reason the world is like it is today is because the rich like you use the
> military to enforce YOUR standards around the world.

My standards do not exist in any country in the world - your standards, on
the other hand, do. My standards exist in very few individuals, spread out
throughout the entire globe, and these individuals have little political
power, if any - no one country expresses my political opinions. Every
country opperates off a premise incompatible with mine - collectivism.
Every country regards its citizeins as property. And every country
practices your philosophy that individual man and his products are property
of the collective and that his rights are non existant and may be voted away
at any whim.

I regard every man as an individual with rights that cannot be violated - I
cannot say the same for you, and it is your philosophy that is dominant in t
he world.

>i advocate ending the
> military role in politics and aggression on foreign soil.

The roots of war are not in individualism - the roots of war are in
collectivism and the negation of individual rights. You don't believe in
individual rights


>you stand behind
> the military because your politicians tell you money is worth more than
> life.

I stand behind the military because people like Ayatollah and Stalin exist.
I have no politicians. The last politician that held my viewpoint was Barry
Goldwater, and he's long since gone. No one tells me what I value. Money
is the sustainance of life and the product of my mind, the sustainance of my
life is more important to me than the lives of others whom I have nothing to
do with, it is the only rational way to live.

>fuck this one culture bullshit you advocate.

Then you say: fuck rights, fuck justice, fuck life. The culture I advocate
is the culture of individualism and justice.

>you are a disgrace to
> your heritage.

Heritage is probably the most irrelivent thing about a person, only a
collectivist such as your self would ever make such a comment.

You don't see humans as individuals, you only see groups, be it "black",
"poor", "rich", "jewish" or what ever.

I may be a disgrace to my heritage, but you are a disgrace to reason and to
humanity.

--
Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a
mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering
is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence - man is
not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause - life is
not one huge hospital.

insaner

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 3:26:33 AM11/5/03
to
On 05 Nov 2003 04:49:25 GMT, baxt...@aol.comeonme (TobiasPhoneFuck)
wrote:

>>you stalk dudes...
>>
>>need i say more?
>
> Wow. You have totally taken me down. Your reminder of more of alli's lies
>have made me so close to nothing.


you arent nothing. you stalk dudes. me in particular, so forgive me
if i bust you out. sicko.


> I am leaving here and never coming back. It's
>like i have seen the light or something.


your pathetic ego would never allow it now. are you mad at me? does
your haed burn?

> Oh, and in the future, don't get mad just because someone called you on who
>you really are, hypocrite.


we are all hypocrites, but you and you alone are mad, loser.

aww does your mouth ache?

do you have a retort.

remember, you stalked me out in real life, saints fag.

boo hoo.

you have a tarp for the bleeding form the head, sociopathic, suicidal
fool?

i figured an anal suicide would require the forethought for keeping it
clean.

forgive me if i misread you.

that should appeal to your martyr complex.


tu numquam intellegre


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

changey

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 7:58:35 AM11/5/03
to

"TobiasPhoneFuck" <baxt...@aol.comeonme> wrote in message
news:20031104234925...@mb-m04.aol.com...

> >you stalk dudes...
> >
> >need i say more?
>
> Wow. You have totally taken me down. Your reminder of more of alli's
lies

you stalked insaner. you broke that news here. idiot.

changey

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 8:18:32 AM11/5/03
to

"Der Neu Inquisitor" <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boa28i$1c340t$1...@ID-153809.news.uni-berlin.de...

write your congressmen.

> The government now has the power, thanks to the left, to create any
> rule it wants to - and I guess by your previous statement as long as it's
a
> rule in writing it's ok to practice.

write your congressmen. i do. regularly.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > Mob rule is not civilization and
> > > not desireable.
> >
> > mob rule is hardly what is going on here. in order for mob rule, crowds
> of
> > citizens must be in charge. in this country, the cries of the
> > underprivileged and thus alienated are ignored.
>
> Mob rule in this context is used to describe pressure groups lobbying in
> washington,

hahahahhahahaha. if it weren't for lobby groups, your precious moneyfuckers
wouldn't get a dime. and unless i misread you, you LOVE lobby groups. you
said they are what exist in a true democracy.


>each one promosing to spend someone else's money on a "better
> cause".
>
> >
> > >
> > > > sorry, sebastian- you and your rich friends will never pay their
fair
> > > share.
> > > > and that is an undeniable truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > My fair share, along with the fair share of all my rich friends, added
> to
> > > the fair share of every one else in the country, is 0 - absolutely
> > nothing.
> >
> > then i'll kindly ask you to stay off MY roads.
>
> I advocate private ownership of roads, as you well know.

that's nice. it also isn't the way it is. want it to change? write your
congressmen. until then, stay off my roads, you tax evading asshole.

> The system has
> been set up to impose a duty on me to pay for roads. I would gladly pay a
> toll to drive on a road if a businessman owned it.
>
> >
> > > Anything that I choose to give is a generous gift at my discretion. I
> had
> > > nothing to do with those fires or the people who were harmed by those
> > fires.
> >
> > and you'd let thousands of people live in the streets because of it.
> thank
> > god the rest of the country doesn't feel like you do.
>
> Let? Just just you let thousands of young south american children die
> everyday from malnutrition? Just like you let thousands of people die
from
> AIDS in India every day? Couldn't you be there right now washing the
lepors
> off of little kid's arms? Can't you live without your DSL and instead
give
> that money to charity? Do you really need a house? I mean, couldn't you
> live in a shack and do without a computer, car or electricity?

i pay my taxes. i don't claim to be the one with all the answers. you are
confusing me with you.


>
> Let? It's not my place, job, duty, or responsibillty to take care of
people
> that I don't know and most likely will never know. Every man's life is
his
> own responsibillity to plan for and to rationally, not whimsically, live.
>
> However, emergency situations, like these fires, are the only times that I
> advocate charity. I have no problem with, and encourage that man help his
> fellow man in times of emergency

you're soooo kind.

>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The only time I owe anything to anyone is when someone gives me a
> product
> > or
> > > performs a service - that's it - I don't owe someone else's children
an
> > > education,
> >
> > of course you don't. i mean, raising intelligent children couldn't
> possibly
> > benefit your nation.
>
> Check your premises - is my concern the good of the common or the good of
> myself? The fact of the matter is that under a privatized education
system
> a very large majority of children would still get to go to school, middle
> and upper class private schools would far surpass middle and upper class
> modern public schools and the lower class private schools would be shitty
> just like the lower class public schools are now - main difference is the
> fact that I'm not going to be paying for a service that I'm not using.

thank god you saved all that tax money! you can now buy implants for your
precious Ana!

>
> I state again: I do not owe someone else's children an education.
>
>
> > > I don't owe your grandparents prescription drugs and I don't owe
> > > homeless people a place to live.
> >
> > that's right. let 'em die. they aren't giving you any money anyway.
and
> > we all know that money is more important than life.
>
> A statement such as that illustrates that you have no idea what money
> represents or what the source of money is.
>
> Yes, let them die or attempt to survive off of private charity (or god
> forbid......plan for their futures when they're young. Gasp!)

how exactly does one plan for one's future when every dime one makes goes
into surviving in the now? not everyone makes 100,000+ on stolen porn or
corrupt capigalist ventures like the REAL capitalist system.

>
> I state again: I do not owe your grandparents medical attention or
homeless
> people a place to live.

rest assured, even if i was required to, i wouldn't lend you a hand.

why?
because you might bump into the people you say aren't worth your dime?
heavens to besty! maybe one of them might recognize you as the cold hearted
self centered money fucker you are and SNEEZE on you!!!!

> and, like I said, I'm all for paying to use a privatized road system.

ahhhh, the dreams of the ignorant....so sweet!

yeah. the eventual choking of the entire planet is negligible.


>
> > > medicine,
> >
> > which by your standards shouldn't help anyone that isn't worth 70,000 a
> > year.
>
> blah blah blah.

GOOD ONE!!!!

>
> > > water purification,
> >
> > yeah, there's tons of money in giving villages in africa pure water.
>
> There's no market for water purification in africa. However, my home town
> of boulder colorado had great usage for it.
>
> > > steam engines,
> >
> > ah the beginning of the pollution revolution
> >
> > > mass power supply, the light bulb, etc,
> > > etc - everything that has made life easier,
> >
> > more stressful, you mean
>
> Please, for fucks sake, get the fuck out of my country

spoken like the walmart generation you come from. what 's on NASCAR this
weekend?

and live in the
> fucking arctic - you'll never have to deal with a stressful luxury ever
> again, I promise.
>
> > >and a good life more accessible,
> > > have been done by people working selfishly in their own interest,
> > everything
> > > that keeps us healthier and living longer was invented by man working
> for
> > > himself. Who had a more positive impact on the world: Mother Teresa
or
> > > Alexander Fleming?
> >
> > who is he?
> >
> > >
> > > Of course, the fact that selfishness and the division of labour
> inevitably
> > > benefits all and brings the standard of living up for the general
> > population
> > > is the secondary consequence and not the moral justification of
egoism.
> >
> > tell me again how PVC's dumped in the river brings the standard of
living
> > up?
>
> Are you telling me that the standard of living for all classes in all
> countries that had a capitalist base isn't higher than it was
> pre-capitalism?

yep

>
> I really wish you'd move to one of your socialist havens, I hear that
China
> is accepting citizenship right now.

i'm thinking more of canada.


>
> > >
> > > Seriously, it's time you step out of the emo box and start using your
> > head.
> >
> > no, it's time to take your head out of your wallet and see that a bit of
> > compassion goes much further than a piece of paper with only imagined
> value.
>
> Compassion is fine - self sacrifice is not.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled greed,
> such
> > > as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended
> > against
> > > your own government's desire to expel him)
> >
> > quote me, cockstain.
>
> You were for keeping him in power, were you not?

nice quote, and no i was not.


>
> > >, Jozef Stalin or Fidel Castro -
> > > greed that calls to lie, cheat, steal or kill to get to the top - and
> > there
> > > is the greed practiced by men such as Kirk Kirkorian, Donald Trump or
> > > myself - the greed that calls to *earn* your way to the top for your
own
> > > sake and not at anyone else's expense.
> >
> > those guys certainly have not gotten rich without stepping on the backs
of
> > the poor. get your head out of your ass.
>
> Prove it.

it's public record, dipshit. look it up.

>
> > >
> > > Greedy men like me do not violate other people's rights - we simply
> fight
> > > against the burden that men like you try to impose on us. Without men
> > like
> > > me to produce, you'd have no one to steal from.
> >
> > excuse me? i pay my taxes. i steal from nobody.
>
> You advocate that everyone else be stolen from as well.

i advocate that nobody is any better than anyone else, regardless of how
much money they have in their wallet.


>
> people like you on the
> > other hand, make us poor people pay your way via the military.
>
> I don't agree with military taxation and you know this.

without the military, this country couldn't spread your precious capitalism
around the world.

i "loose" what?
didn't they teach you how to spell "lose" in that swanky priovate school you
went to? or was it the same private school that taught becca that
sacramento was only a 2 hour drive from san fran?

and ONLY of the human mind.


>
> >
> > >and yours is the gun.
> >
> > for fucking once, back this shit up. what you speak is libelous.
>
> You advocate that the government initiate force against it's citizens by
> taking money from them - this is called stealing, and you can't steal
> without the threat of physical force.

i willingly pay my taxes. nobody is forcing me to do anything. i actually
give MORE than the required amount each week.


>
>
> the only
> > reason the world is like it is today is because the rich like you use
the
> > military to enforce YOUR standards around the world.
>
> My standards do not exist in any country in the world - your standards, on
> the other hand, do. My standards exist in very few individuals,

praise allah!

> spread out
> throughout the entire globe, and these individuals have little political
> power, if any - no one country expresses my political opinions. Every
> country opperates off a premise incompatible with mine - collectivism.
> Every country regards its citizeins as property. And every country
> practices your philosophy that individual man and his products are
property
> of the collective and that his rights are non existant and may be voted
away
> at any whim.
>
> I regard every man as an individual with rights that cannot be violated -
I
> cannot say the same for you, and it is your philosophy that is dominant in
t
> he world.
>
> >i advocate ending the
> > military role in politics and aggression on foreign soil.
>
> The roots of war are not in individualism - the roots of war are in
> collectivism and the negation of individual rights.


hahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!! tell that to bush!

> You don't believe in
> individual rights

if you live in a country, then you need to support the things that you use.
roads. education. public employees that get your power up and running
after a disaster, etc.

>
>
> >you stand behind
> > the military because your politicians tell you money is worth more than
> > life.
>
> I stand behind the military because people like Ayatollah and Stalin
exist.

and the shah, and the demcratically elected gov't in iran, and chile, and
coutless other examples....


> I have no politicians. The last politician that held my viewpoint was
Barry
> Goldwater, and he's long since gone. No one tells me what I value. Money
> is the sustainance of life and the product of my mind, the sustainance of
my
> life is more important to me than the lives of others whom I have nothing
to
> do with, it is the only rational way to live.
>
> >fuck this one culture bullshit you advocate.
>
> Then you say: fuck rights, fuck justice, fuck life. The culture I advocate
> is the culture of individualism and justice.
>
> >you are a disgrace to
> > your heritage.
>
> Heritage is probably the most irrelivent thing about a person, only a
> collectivist such as your self would ever make such a comment.
>
> You don't see humans as individuals, you only see groups, be it "black",
> "poor", "rich", "jewish" or what ever.
>
> I may be a disgrace to my heritage, but you are a disgrace to reason and
to
> humanity.

yawn.


Swank Magazine Jr

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 8:36:32 AM11/5/03
to
Der Neu Inquisitor <nofor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I stand behind the military because people like Ayatollah and Stalin exist.

..and that guy, President, and that evil bastard, Arch-Bishop.

Ayatollah is a title, not a person. Put your book of quotes down and
learn something. You might have an original thought one day.

changey

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 8:46:10 AM11/5/03
to

"Swank Magazine Jr" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:boaucu$1clala$1...@ID-204009.news.uni-berlin.de...

not to mention the US military is responsible for the Ayatollah coming into
power.

sebastian might be smart....wait. no he isn't.


Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 9:06:01 AM11/5/03
to

"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:10680382...@jedi.vermontel.net...

> hahahahhahahaha. if it weren't for lobby groups, your precious
moneyfuckers
> wouldn't get a dime. and unless i misread you, you LOVE lobby groups.
you
> said they are what exist in a true democracy.

No. He doesn't, strictly speaking, advocate democracy. He advocates a
government which can only do things which protect what he describes as
"rights which exist objectively". As such, lobbying a government would have
no point; they couldn't do anything about the thing you were lobbying for.
And indeed, they don't even *need* to be democratic, so long as they defend
these rights.

One notes that many of the things that you and I would agree to be 'rights'
are not the kind of thing he accepts. For example, granting more or less
universal health care, and hence the right of most people to live in a
healthy state despite their bad luck, like having some weird mutation or
getting a nasty disease, is 'evil' since it strips all the people well
enough to work of some portion of their money. I think you and I would say
that the amount of freedom lost by the individual, here, is pretty subtle
for the taxee.

But. I could see his point. And I'd agree with him, but that I think his
philosophy is fundamentally one that cares about means to the detriment of
the importance of consequences; I think if you wander too far left (as the
term is used in America) the importance of consequences over means is over
stressed. *I* think that considering them as separate things at all is a
fairly ludicrous idea.

And I think both of you are far too melodramatic when you discuss these
things. You call him 'moneyfucker', he calls democrats 'communists.' I
think, frankly, that you are too far 'left' and he is too far 'right', and
that you're both believing what you say, far too much.

Mark Shea


changey

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 9:57:13 AM11/5/03
to

"Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bob049$1b7ibi$1...@ID-103131.news.uni-berlin.de...

sebastian lives in a fairy tale world where militaries and poor people do
not exist. while i may wish for the same thing, i choose to base my points
in reality. poor people do exist, and they are as deserving to live as
someone with money sticking out of their butthole. sebastian's position
means that some people will get richer, and the poor will get poorer to the
point where they die off. then, a new class of poor will exist. they'll be
making $70,000 a year, but with the new rich elite class making millions,
$70,000 will no longer be a survivable wage, thus beginning (or continuing)
the cycle again.
militaries do exist, and no polititian EVER will eradicate them.

where there is money, there is corruption. sebastian's/ayn rand's utopia
can never exist. marx's utopia can never exist. working with what we have
going right now is the only way for progress to be made. and by progress, i
don't mean 500 more polluting factories being made. why do we need more (of
anything) than we already have? the way wealth is distributed right now is
why more and more factories cranking out more and more cheap shit for the
masses are being built, thus creating more toxicity and so forth. i
understand that people will never be happy with what they have, however,
driving ahead pell-mell without thinking of the environmental and helth
consequences will wipe us out. of course, sebastian cares not about the end
game scenario. he'd choose to dump battery acid in the river that waters
his plantations rather than spend a few dollars to make sure that battery
acid doesn't endanger the health of the people eating the polluted food.
why should he care? he'll be dead long before he and ana's offspring are
dying of the cancer he helped create.


TobiasPhoneFuck

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:01:53 AM11/5/03
to
>you arent nothing. you stalk dudes. me in particular, so forgive me
>if i bust you out. sicko.

Yeah, i remember when i followed you home in my car, and when i looked in
your window and watched you beat off. Oh, if only i could have that night back
instead of just the memory in my head.

TobiasPhoneFuck

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:03:06 AM11/5/03
to
>you stalked insaner. you broke that news here. idiot.

Changey thinks he's people, how cute.

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:04:15 AM11/5/03
to
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:06:01 +0800, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
>news:10680382...@jedi.vermontel.net...
>
>> hahahahhahahaha. if it weren't for lobby groups, your precious
>moneyfuckers
>> wouldn't get a dime. and unless i misread you, you LOVE lobby groups.
>you
>> said they are what exist in a true democracy.
>
>No. He doesn't, strictly speaking, advocate democracy. He advocates a
>government which can only do things which protect what he describes as
>"rights which exist objectively".

But how would this government faithfully protect these rights?
Certainly, the only way government can operate is with money.
Sebastian is against taxation and against tariffs and against any sort
of gov't forced contribution whatsoever. The only recourse government
has then, is to seek out donations.However, this begs the question:
what sort of inbuilt protection is there for those who don't have
money? What sort of inbuilt protection is there to ensure that the
government doesn't only use 'donated' money to protect the rights of
those who donate?

Sure. In Sebastian's ideal government, the electorate would still have
the power to elect the leaders of their choosing. But these leaders
aren't going to be able to carry out any sort of domestic or foreign
policy without donations. Consequently, the *actions* of Sebastian's
ideal government would be dictated almost solely by monied interests.
How can such a government possibly guarantee any sort of inalienable
rights for all?

He champions both the virtues of personal liberty and self-interest
and yet at the same time, takes it for granted that the self-interest
of the rich and powerful isn't going to invade upon the personal
liberty of the less fortunate. Or if they do, Sebastian seems sure
that this government - that is voluntarily financed by those with
money to spare - is going to step in on the behalf of these less
fortunate folk. This government, we are to believe, isn't going to
overlook transgressions in fear of losing the financing of those who
have the money and power to trample upon the rights of others in the
first place.

> As such, lobbying a government would have
>no point; they couldn't do anything about the thing you were lobbying for.
>And indeed, they don't even *need* to be democratic, so long as they defend
>these rights.

Who is going to ensure that they defend any rights?

I think we take the idea of a very powerful government entrenched in
certain ideals for granted in the western world. But Sebastian
essentially wants to have his cake and eat it too - he wants an
unfunded weak government that somehow has the uncanny ability to morph
into a powerful entity long enough to stop monied interests in their
tracks if they trample upon the liberty of others in the name of
profit.

It's a la-la land utopia which only works in a world where everyone
respects the liberty of everyone else without oversight and without
regulation. If the world were truly that way, I might subscribe to
Sebastian's ideals. Coincidentally enough, if the world were that
perfect, I might subscribe to full-blown socialism as well.

But it isn't that perfect so I'll continue to support the lesser of
two evils. "Mob rule", in my opinion, is certainly better than "money
rule".

<snip>

-alakaheem

Mark Shea

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:30:12 AM11/5/03
to

"alakaheem" <alak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ks3iqv4b8uj1d3d2g...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:06:01 +0800, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"changey" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> >news:10680382...@jedi.vermontel.net...
> >
> >> hahahahhahahaha. if it weren't for lobby groups, your precious
> >moneyfuckers
> >> wouldn't get a dime. and unless i misread you, you LOVE lobby groups.
> >you
> >> said they are what exist in a true democracy.
> >
> >No. He doesn't, strictly speaking, advocate democracy. He advocates a
> >government which can only do things which protect what he describes as
> >"rights which exist objectively".
>
> But how would this government faithfully protect these rights?

Please, don't misconstrue my point of view to be the same as his.

Mark Shea


insaner

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:50:57 AM11/5/03
to
On 05 Nov 2003 16:01:53 GMT, baxt...@aol.comeonme (TobiasPhoneFuck)
wrote:

>>you arent nothing. you stalk dudes. me in particular, so forgive me
>>if i bust you out. sicko.
>
> Yeah, i remember when i followed you home in my car, and when i looked in
>your window and watched you beat off. Oh, if only i could have that night back
>instead of just the memory in my head.


yeah i knew that was you.

G-Ride

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 1:26:18 PM11/5/03
to
Der Neu Inquisitor wrote:

> > > Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled greed,
> such
> > > as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended
> > against
> > > your own government's desire to expel him)
> >
> > quote me, cockstain.
>
> You were for keeping him in power, were you not?
>


Is it your opinion that anyone who did not want to go to war against
Iraq is/was a supporter of Saddam Hussein?


--
Aloha, G-Ride

"I'm funky, not a junkie but i know where to get it."

changey

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 1:40:59 PM11/5/03
to

"G-Ride" <G-R...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:3FA940CA...@yahoo.net...

> Der Neu Inquisitor wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, there are two types of greed. There is unprincipled
greed,
> > such
> > > > as that practiced by Saddam Hussein (who's existence you've defended
> > > against
> > > > your own government's desire to expel him)
> > >
> > > quote me, cockstain.
> >
> > You were for keeping him in power, were you not?
> >
>
>
> Is it your opinion that anyone who did not want to go to war against
> Iraq is/was a supporter of Saddam Hussein?

it sure appears so.


but, seb's too busy writing condolence cards to the moms of the US soldiers
killed while looking for the weapons of mass destruction to read this post.

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 1:57:21 PM11/5/03
to
On 05 Nov 2003 01:33:51 GMT, smagma...@aol.communism (Smagmapig333)
wrote:

>yes you did. it recieved the response "That's an amazingly good point". when in
>fact it was just a question.
>
>my mistake.
>
>so... what is your take on that? to what extent, and under what circumstances
>should the scientist recieve credit?
>
>you said "Knowledge is a
>double-edged sword and the subsequent consequences of the discovery of
>knowledge should only be attributed to those who wield that sword".
>
>would you classify the discovery of the use of antibiotics as a "sword"?
>
>in the case of eintstein/szilard, einstein brought up the possibilities of the
>uses of nuclear physics. einstein didn't however continue to work on that
>particular project, he only pointed out the possible uses.
>
>how much credit shall he recieve?

Quite honestly, I really don't have any interest in debating you. You
don't really seem to want to argue a point, but rather you seem to be
solely motivated by gaining face and scoring some sort of rhetorical
points. If I post a serious response, you're probably going to come at
me from an entirely different and contrary direction.

I mean, seriously, look at your last 3 posts on this matter:

My point has gone from being completely irrelevant to relevant, but
not technically a point at all.

Einstein has gone from being, without a doubt, accountable for the
consequences of his research to probably not all that culpable because
he only raised some intriguing possibilities.

You're not taking a stance of any sort - at least not for any longer
than a single post - and so all you're doing is picking a fight. It's
easy to debate someone if you're not beholden to any sort of
consistency.

>mike

-alakaheem

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 2:26:02 PM11/5/03
to
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:26:18 -1000, G-Ride <G-R...@yahoo.net> wrote:

>
>Is it your opinion that anyone who did not want to go to war against
>Iraq is/was a supporter of Saddam Hussein?

Isn't it sort of quirky how DNI condemns all taxation as stealing, but
at the same time condemns people who were against a war financed
almost entirely with this stolen money?

DNI has often said that 'stealing' money is a means that cannot be
justified by any end result. At least, that's what he says when it
comes to teaching poor kids to read and write. But when it comes to
bombing and rebuilding a country overseas, this sentiment seems to be
much more muted.

-alakaheem

alakaheem

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 2:26:41 PM11/5/03
to
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:30:12 +0800, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Please, don't misconstrue my point of view to be the same as his.

Oops. Sorry, if it came off as such. I realized you were only
reiterating his argument

>Mark Shea
>

-alakaheem

Smagmapig333

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 4:48:32 PM11/5/03