panpareil

It is a fine thing to feed a person until they can feed themselves, or to care for those who will never be able to feed themselves. But the intentional domestication of human beings that have the potential to be free and self-sustaining is as disgusting as the institution of slavery. There is a reason why feeding wild animals is banned everywhere. It makes them dependent and lowers their chance of overall survival, and it makes it more likely they will attack humans when they want more. If we are to be extending carrots they should be just far enough out of reach to require a days work to get it. This is not cruel. It is no meaner than requiring a child to eat their vegetables, or do their homework. There is a desired outcome of an independent adult citizen, not a dependent ward of the state. Our species is doomed if we allow the bulk of the population to degrade to the point that they can no longer maintain their own survival.

Aminals by Baths on Cerulean Lemonade by BRAIDS on Native Speaker

Dan is right. Nature is just another word for God. As are Humanity, Society and other abstract collective nouns when they are used as sentient subject nouns.

Not all atheists find evidence and validity to The Big Bang Theory. But, I just love Penny.

If we could predict it then we would no longer need insurance or disaster relief. We will never know which house will be destroyed, even if we can estimate approximately how many houses will be destroyed. This is the nature of chaos.

Weather is not a creation or a product. It is uncontrolled chaos itself.

I do love that man.

It seems in some cases religions start out polytheistic with various aspects of deity embodied in separate personae, like the Christian trinity. New deities or anti-deities can develop in an established religion out of a need to fulfill a missing aspect of the original godhead, such as Satan. Foreign or conquered peoples gods have been incorporated into exiting religious pantheons as saints or lesser deities, such as Saint Bridget (The Celtic Goddess Brigid), as is the iconography of the gods of conquered peoples - fir trees, eggs, and rabbits. Gods have even been created by combining two peoples deities when they merge, which has been postulated for the use of both El and Yahweh for the name of God along with the merging of Judah and Israel. I do not mean to pick on Christianity or Judaism, these are just the religions I'm most acquainted with. Examples can be pulled out of all other older religions. I also see a vacillation between having the universe run by a lone individual to the idea of a collective running things. My personal view is that monotheism is a development upon polytheism and that it reflects a more integrated world view.

The government can only restrict the rights people already have, and distribute other peoples property. Outside of gifts, owning is solely dependent on ones ability to acquire property. People cannot be the property of others because they already have a current owner - themselves. Self ownership is instantaneous and inalienable, only ending with death. It also means that there will always be property that is not and cannot be owned in common. Private property is a permanent reality, that is violated but never negated. Old time slavery is no longer efficient enough. If you are forced to work you can rebel by not working to thwart the would be slave-owner. To be more sneaky they now wait until after you have already worked for what should be yours and they take the product of your labor by force. The only way to escape this form of slavery is to stop working and become dependent on the slave owner for your existence, funded by the labor of other slaves. So now it is the slaves themselves that perpetuate slavery. God is not necessary to understand human rights or morality.

Are you saying that slave owners had a right to own slaves when it was granted by government? Rights are not granted by government, they are only respected or violated by government, just as by other individuals. Rights are a product and expression of sentient existence. In other words you grant your own rights. The propose of government should be limited to addressing the conflict in the exercising of rights. If not, society is in all cases reduced to might makes right. Those who benefit from this generally do not see it as well as those who inevitably suffer from it.

Yes, when wrong is ambiguous and not specifically defined, or when the definition of wrong is also wrong. Such as the wrongness of harboring escaped slaves, or using a drinking fountain not specified for your race. If enough of the population say so, anything can be wrong, even if making it wrong is also wrong.

Happy ULC Day!!

Perhaps, asking what happens after death is like asking what is north of the north pole. Maybe it is just not a proper question.

And yet like Arjuna, we are what we are. We do what we do. Playing our part in life is not egotistic, if our part is an egotist. I think there may be an entry in the DSM for those who are missing their ego. There must be some quantifiable regarding spirituality otherwise all would not only be the same they would also be considered the same. Yet we have Gandhi and Gacy. So is the difference real or imaginary? And if it is imaginary does it make any difference what we do? If it is real is it any more than our feelings for the person, a list of their deeds, or their intentions. Personally, I go with my gut.

Purpose is the sum of free choices made and free actions taken. This is possible because existence is indeterministic (see Heisenberg), even on the macroscopic level (see Bose-Einstein condensate). All actions and reactions are rooted in randomness. Meaning we are free to act as we desire. You get to decide. You get to do what you want, but that does not mean you will have the results that you want. Your success depends on your understanding of the consequences of your actions, how you affect other things and how they will act in response. If you refuse to accept responsibility for your actions you will probably not be successful. Having children is just another choice, for the parents and the children. And by the way, it is just as easy to be happy as it is to suffer.(Another choice) The number of people killing and being killed is fairly small. In the end everything must die anyway, including this planet, and the entire universe.

One can productively work with anyone that has a common goal. When goals conflict this is not usually possible.

Drink lots of fluids. Get lots of bed rest. Buy lots of cough drops. This one has a long lingering cough on the end.

And so ye faithful, there is no shadow to see An early Spring for you and me. http://www.groundhog.org/

I can tell by all the banging outside that the new year that was not supposed to happen is finally here. Happy Year after the end of the world all.

Already on my mp3 player.

An animal can only be property, either of an individual or the state. It cannot participate in governing.If we are each our sovereign, then we have complete authority to harm ourselves. If we are not sovereign and others are sovereign over us then what happens to us is decided by others. Ownership involves sovereignty. When we loose sovereignty we also loose ownership and the right to object to treatment by others. No rights make any sense unless they are based on personal or divine sovereignty. If they are based on other men there is the problem of circularity or situationalism. In other words where is the source of sovereignty if it is not the self.

A part of the right, the whole of the left. There are statists who vote on the right, but statism is not compatible with the ideals of the right, while it is essential to the ideals of the left.

If we are not allowed to hurt ourselves, then we do not own ourselves, which gives all license to do anything to anyone.

The core positions of the entire left are religious, although they will not admit it. The anthropomorphized entity humanity is their god, which is non existent and merely a statistical aggregate of individuals. Altruism is the expression of devotion to their god. But most telling is the drive to control in its name, and wield inquisitional force to exterminate opposition. Militants are on all sides. The apathetic are on no side. The division is between those who see the brightest future in everyone uninhibited in following their own counsel, much like the ULC, and those who see the brightest future in everyone being directed by those who know better. The problem with the later is in the choosing those who know better, and more importantly just what knowing better means. In my experience committees have a poorer performance record than a motivated and self organizing group.

The scent of the flower would not be as sweet if it was less rare. And on the other hand the smell of the skunk would not be at all repugnant if it were constant.Having less is often having more.