From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #468 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, December 20 2003 Volume 12 : Number 468 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The greatest week in rock history ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Song query [fingerpuppets ] Re: ah, sweet SE Michigan [Dolph Chaney ] Wacky timekiller ;) [Eb ] RE: Wacky timekiller ;) ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) [Tom Clark ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) ["Grunty" ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) [Steve Talkowski ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) [Capuchin ] Re: Wacky timekiller ;) [Capuchin ] Re: A Very Merry Genocide. I mean, Christmas. [Capuchin Subject: Re: The greatest week in rock history > From: steve > Subject: The greatest week in rock history > > No. 3, "Tom Jones Live in Las Vegas," Tom Jones I finally, FINALLY, found a minty copy of this LP this week and played it last night. I'd been searching for it since 1988. And it was worth the wait -- TJ really works the ladies into a froth on that one, no? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:59:05 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: The greatest week in rock history At 01:47 PM 12/19/2003 -0600, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: >And it was worth the wait -- TJ really works the ladies into a froth on that >one, no? Yes. AMG REVIEW: Tom Jones' greatest strength is as a showman, making Tom Jones Live in Las Vegas one of his strongest records. As he tears through his well-constructed show, the vocalist works the reserved crowd into a near-frenzy, which makes him sing stronger and more dramatically. However, Tom Jones is at his best when he is at his most melodramatic, so this isn't a flaw. Jones' impassioned performance and the absence of weak material make Live in Las Vegas one of his most consistent records. Not surprisingly, it was also his biggest hit, peaking at number three on the American album charts.  Stephen Thomas Erlewine 1. Turn on Your Love Light (Malone/Scott) 2. The Bright Lights and You Girl 3. I Can't Stop Loving You 4. Hard to Handle 5. Delilah (Mason/Reed) 6. Danny Boy (Weatherly) 7. (It Looks Like) I'll Never Fall in Love... (Donegan/Prince) 8. Help Yourself (Donida/Fishman) 9. Yesterday (Lennon/McCartney) 10. Hey Jude (Lennon/McCartney) 11. Love Me Tonight 12. It's Not Unusual (Mills/Reed) 13. Twist and Shout (Medley/Russell) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:01:43 +1300 From: Martin Bell Subject: Martin Bell/New Zealand/IDG is out of the office. I will be out of the office starting 19/12/2003 and will not return until 12/01/2004. I will respond to your message when I return. Happy Holidays! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:14:16 -0800 From: "Natalie Jacobs" Subject: ah, sweet SE Michigan Origins of Iggy: >Either Ann Arbor (as Michael said) or...Ypsilanti? From a trailer park somewhere in the DMZ between Ann Arbor and Ypsi... but I think he went to school in Ann Arbor. >(Really, I'm posting this primarily to get the word "Ypsilanti" in the >feg archives. Natalie will, I'm sure, have fond memories of avoiding >Ypsilanti in her past...) The most notable thing about Ypsilanti, besides the name, is the water tower, which dates back to the late 1800's and is a classic example of Freud's "return of the repressed," as it resembles an enormous stone penis. It's the main landmark in the town, so instructions to places in Ypsi will often include something like "turn left at the penis." Dolph has witnessed this architectural miracle, as I recall... I'm sure he can further attest to its greatness. n. n.p. the Shins, "Chutes Too Narrow" _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:28:37 -0500 From: fingerpuppets Subject: Re: Song query one time at band camp, Tom Clark (tclark@mac.com) said: >Excuse my ignorance, but I don't recognize "Full Moon In My Soul" from RH's >recent tour. Is it new? A Cover? i believe it's new. +w ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:29:15 -0600 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: ah, sweet SE Michigan At 03:14 PM 12/19/2003, Natalie Jacobs implicated me in her Ypsilantian penile-tower-watering madness, writing: >Dolph has witnessed this architectural miracle, as I recall... I'm sure he >can further attest to its greatness. Yes, yes, I was there, I sawr it. It was... like a diamond in the sky. - -- dolph ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:11:30 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Wacky timekiller ;) http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) Not remarkably high, actually. I think I lost a lot of points for certain things, like not dressing "rock & roll" and not being a mix-tape guy. I also left that entire "secret likes" section blank. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:27:44 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: Wacky timekiller ;) >From: Eb >Subject: Wacky timekiller ;) >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:11:30 -0800 >http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm >I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) 58.69565% - Mega Music Nerd Max _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy the holiday season with great tips from MSN. http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:00:58 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) on 12/19/03 4:11 PM, Eb at ElBroome@earthlink.net wrote: > http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm > > I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) > > Not remarkably high, actually. I think I lost a lot of points for > certain things, like not dressing "rock & roll" and not being a > mix-tape guy. I also left that entire "secret likes" section blank. > 51.20773% - Super Music Nerd I checked almost everything under "I Know..." but probably lost points for secretly liking RATT. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:26:10 -0500 From: "Grunty" Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) <51.93237% - Super Music Nerd> and i did do the whole thing, so i guess that's not very high. kind of fun though, beats packing to go to NJ (can't i just stay here for Christmas?) : P Grunty DaWarthawg gruntydawarthawg@verizon.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:29:20 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) On Dec 19, 2003, at 8:00 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > on 12/19/03 4:11 PM, Eb at ElBroome@earthlink.net wrote: > >> http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm >> >> I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) >> >> Not remarkably high, actually. I think I lost a lot of points for >> certain things, like not dressing "rock & roll" and not being a >> mix-tape guy. I also left that entire "secret likes" section blank. >> > > 51.20773% - Super Music Nerd > > I checked almost everything under "I Know..." but probably lost points > for > secretly liking RATT. 55.31401% - Mega Music Nerd Which is surprising considering I don't collect vinyl (the last LP I bought was Storefront Hitchcock, which Jonathan Demme signed when he dropped by Blue Sky for a visit a few years ago) and have never made a mix tape or CD. Though, I do get constantly teased for my obsession with Elvis Costello. And, who doesn't like old school video game music?! (Mr. Do, Galaga, Crystal Castles and Tron being personal faves...) - -Steve (hey, I finally booked my hotel for 9 days in Paris - first time visiting and I'll be spending both Xmas and New Years there) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:02:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) Eb wrote: > http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm > > I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) > > Not remarkably high, actually. I think I lost a lot > of points for certain things, like not > dressing "rock & roll" and not being a > mix-tape guy. I also left that entire "secret likes" > section blank. 54.10628% - Super Music Nerd. Only "clothes" were black glasses and flannel shirts. only artists under secret likes were artists i don't have any particular shame about liking so i left them blank. I also don't want a 100 disc CD player, but that's because I already have a 200 disc CD player. ===== "Senator John McCain recently compared the situation in Iraq to the Vietnam era -- to which President Bush replied, 'What does Iraq have in common with drinking beer in Texas?'" -- Craig Kilborn "I don't think the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq. I think it's worse than that. I think they fooled themselves. I think they were conned by Ahmad Chalabi. I think they indulged in wishful thinking to a point of near criminality. I think they decided anyone who didn't agree with them was an enemy, anti-American, disloyal. In other words, I think they're criminally stupid." -- Molly Ivins __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:43:08 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Grunty wrote: > (can't i just stay here for Christmas?) Yes. Unless they're fumigating or something. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:46:04 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Wacky timekiller ;) On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Steve Talkowski wrote: > On Dec 19, 2003, at 8:00 PM, Tom Clark wrote: > > on 12/19/03 4:11 PM, Eb at ElBroome@earthlink.net wrote: > >> http://www.couplandesque.net/culture/musicnerd.htm > >> > >> I got 43.71981% (Major Music Nerd) > > > > 51.20773% - Super Music Nerd > > 55.31401% - Mega Music Nerd > > Which is surprising considering I don't collect vinyl (the last LP I > bought was Storefront Hitchcock, which Jonathan Demme signed when he > dropped by Blue Sky for a visit a few years ago) and have never made a > mix tape or CD. Though, I do get constantly teased for my obsession > with Elvis Costello. 61.83575% - Mega Music Nerd And that makes no freakin' sense because I'm not. I think we're finding some kind of inverse relationship going on here. Perhaps the REAL music nerds are super sticklers about the questions and leave some of the questions blank because they are somehow technically inaccurate whereas the rest of us mark it because it's close enough? It really does look backward to me. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:39:44 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: A Very Merry Genocide. I mean, Christmas. I postponed this message while composing the reply yesterday and just got around to finishing it tonight... I've been pretty busy the last couple of days. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Rex.Broome wrote: > Jeme: > >>I cannot imagine how hurting one more person makes things better. > > See, this is how I generally think about things, too... That's fantastic. I'm glad to hear it. Let's me know I'm not way off base. > I am quite the pacificist at heart, utterly opposed to the death > penalty, the whole nine yards. I'm not a pacifist. I just reject punishment. I don't think they're necessarily one and the same (though I see how a pacifist would have to reject punishment). I believe in fighting for, say, your rights or life if there are no real alternatives. I believe in fighting for another's rights or life if there are no other alternatives AND they have specifically asked you to do so (very important to fill both requirements). One must be judicious, of course. It's not right, for example, to help a minority violently overthrow their majority-supported government just because you agree with them and they asked (and sure, those situations are really, really complex). > And when there are mechanisms (and time) in place to decide what's to > happen to a criminal, then no, I don't see that hurting the criminal > helps the victims. It doesn't help anyone. There was one interesting way of handling an issue in the state of Washington. I don't know how all the legal details work and so I can't say I support the policy completely, but here's what happened: A friend of mine was beaten on a street in Vancouver. I don't recall the specifics of what happened, but there was every reason to believe that he was beaten solely because he's openly homosexual. His medical treatment for injuries sustained were covered by the state, but recorded so that, should a criminal conviction ever be found, the convict could be taken to court in a civil suit by the state for restitution in the amount of the medical expenses. In this country full of "fiscal conservatives", such a policy is downright astounding. This may only apply to "hate crimes", however. I just don't know. > But Jeme... hasn't anyone ever pissed you off to the point where you > just wanna fucking deck them? Yeah, absolutely. I'm a human being. I have instincts, including all of the dangerous, hurtful ones. But I am also a human being. So I have intellect. It is my belief that we evolved intelligence in order to free ourselves from the tyranny of our fixed, limited bodies and adapt our surroundings instead of waiting for slow evolution to adapt our bodies through physical change in body covering and limbs. I also believe that we developed intellect (a different thing) to free ourselves from the tyranny of our fixed, limited instincts and adapt our minds with learning and understanding instead of waiting for slow evolution of our instincts through physical change in brain structure and neural connections. While I have those instinctual reactions, I also have reason to counteract those and filter my behavior. I know it is there, but I also know it is wrong. No reason to dwell on it, really. It is a simple fact of life. When someone does some harm out of instinctual response, we need to see that that is part of life and forgive the person for their transgression. Hopefully the person will see the harm and we can help them try to avoid those actions in the future. (Even if they don't see the harm, there are sometimes little things we can do to avoid the situation coming up again.) But BEFORE the action is taken... before the harm has come, we have intellect to step in and reconsider the decision. We can put sometimes put aside the instinctual response and take a more sane, intelligent approach to the situation. We can think, "Oh, hey! I don't HAVE to take revenge... in fact, nothing GOOD will come of it except for some visceral, satisfaction of instinct that has nothing to do with the world I'd LIKE to see exist." We swallow hard and take one on the chin for the sake of a better tomorrow. I'm no spiritualist or religious type, but haven't y'all read Christ's teachings? Don't you WANT people to act like that all the time? I mean, take out all the stuff that's clearly backward and from another time and place and just listen. Read The Gospel of Thomas. There are some fucking gems in there. (And by the way, Jesus appears to advocate the lynching of landlords. So Jello Biafra is kind of singing hymns.) > And maybe not feel all that bad about it later? I try not to feel too bad about my thoughts and actions later. We live and learn. I just try to believe I do my best at any given time and I'm sure to fail every once in a while (or maybe more often). > Because if not (and you occasionally make it sound like such an impulse > is completely alien to you), you really are truly more evolved beyond > some basic vestigial animal characteristics that the rest of us humans > have proven unable to shake. I'm a nice guy. I'm a negotiator when > tempers get hot. But I've had to take action a time or two, and I've > lost my temper occasionally, and you know what? I've just had to > forgive myself for being human, and stuck with some outdated but deeply > ingrained instincts. That's fantastic and the best one can hope. We're all going to do the wrong thing every now and then. Don't dwell on it and forgive both yourself and the other person (or people). Sounds great. > Honestly I've dropped off reading this thread too closely, but I thought > the above might be instructive as to the ongoing question of "tone"... > it's an example of how Jeme's arguments are worthy of consideration > sociopolitically, but somehow hard to extricate from his personal > viewpoints which seem to assume an unassailable moral high ground. > Dunno. I'm just the guy in the plumbing shop. NO! You're exactly right. This is probably much closer to the matter than anyone else has gotten in comments about this "tone problem". (OK, I don't mean to degrade other people's comments... this is the first message that has stuck a chord with me and makes some sense to me.) I think it's not surprise to read me writing that I'm an idealist. But I'm also an idealist about idealism. I think it's the right way to be and think. I think pragmatism is the practice of giving up "best" before you've even tried because you don't think it's possible. I've always been told that Xeno's paradox only applies to idealists and those who hold too closely to logic. However, the exact opposite is true. The pragmatist is the one always making halfway steps toward his goal and never just setting out to achieve. The idealist looks at the far end and says "I'm going to put my arrow there." instead of trying to cross these infinite half-distances. In real life, the idealist will come up short nearly all of the time. But that is no cause to stop trying to do better. We should always work for more than anyone thinks is possible. I speak and write in terms of what I think is best and I tell other people that they should accept no less... but EVERYONE does things they SHOULDN'T every single day and you can't hold it against them. I might tell you that I think you're wrong or not thinking something all the way through, but that doesn't make you worse or me better. I find that I WAS wrong quite a bit... but the important things are that I thought I was right at the time and I now rejected the wrong thing and became right again. If I tell you you're wrong, that's just my opinion and "I am a man as other men are" and I should hope that every rational person knows that their opinion is subjective and recognizes that other people are rational and know this of themselves. I don't think I've been extended that courtesy. I think folks are pretty quick to assume that I DON'T know that I'm only a flawed human being with limited experience and knowledge, capable of errors in reason, memory, and ethics. They take offense at my words as though I'm looking down on other people for not agreeing with me. This is just plain not the case. And I think that's made clear most of the time in person, but doesn't translate well over wires. I don't know how to express proper humility in words without going on and on with redundant crap that you all should know and assume like "I think" and "it is my opinion that" and "I could be wrong, but". OF COURSE all of those things are true. How could they possibly NOT be? Anyway... maybe this'll shed some light on the situation. I'm really sleepy now. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:51:08 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: just a blatant self-publicising reminder... just a blatant self-publicising reminder that if you want to hear what the world's southernmost feg sounds like, my ambient/atmospheric radio show is on at 8 to 10am tomorrow morning NZ time (erm... that's a little over 7 hours away, so it's sleepy boboes for me very shortly). I do the show once every two weeks on Sunday morning, but the station's jusst started live streaming at: . Loads of different softwares supported, so hopefully some of you should be able to hear it if you're so inclined. I'm informed that that will be Saturday lunchtime in various parts of the US (1pm in Chicago?) Mind you, since it's been a busy, busy week and I'm not asleep yet, it'll probably be a very tired DJ walking the usual shambolic mess around... I shall make a point of dedicating something to y'all (hmmm. "Chinese Water Python"'s probably ambient-ish enough...) James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:23:21 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: one bile-filled, horrifying piece of crap OK, slept a couple of hours... can't sleep, killing time. A few reply notes. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 03:55 PM 12/17/2003 -0800, Capuchin wrote: > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > > At 11:49 AM 12/17/2003 -0800, Capuchin wrote: We'll just put that there for reference. > > > I am interested in seeing that the responsible person punished, yes > > > >So, there it is. You're hoping for more pain in the world. > > You haven't a clue what I "hope" for Jeme. The sort of cowardice and > inaction you advocate will in the end bring much more pain into the > world. I can only surmise that is you that desires more suffering on > the planet. Cowardice is locking away people and ideas you fear instead of confronting them as human beings and working out your differences with reason and compassion. It's much harder to be merciful and forgiving than to be vengeful and cruel. In the words of Morrissey, "It's so easy to laugh, it's so easy to hate... it takes strength to be gentle and kind." > >A trial is the means to an end, yes, but that end is a finding of fact > >and law that will (hopefully) provide an accurate picture of that which > >occured. A trial is a seeking of truth. The finding of that truth (or > >at least permanently setting the record crooked) is the most important > >thing a trial can do. > > Incorrect. If the "truth" were the simple end-goal, we wouldn't put the > accused on trial at all, we'd form fact-finding commissions. I disagree. I think the best way we know to find whether a particular thing is true or false is to debate with one side taking a strong stance and the other taking the opposite and debating. The accused stands trial because he is the one most capable of refuting the claim that he was responsible for a particular action. I might understand if a person tried to argue that the punishment serves as motivation for the accused to bring forward the strongest defense and, therefore, test the hypothesis of guilt with as much ability as they can muster. And I think that might have some merit because folks are so ready to commit falsehood in the name of convenience and punishment is intended to be as inconvenient as possible. But I would hope we could find a more humane way to get this assurance from people to serve truth. > Seeking the truth is important so that justice can be served. Justice isn't served, though... it is administered or maintained, perhaps, but not served. Justice is best maintained by righting wrongs. Punishment doesn't make wrongs right... it just makes more wrongs. > >What do you think that means "bringing... to justice"? To you, it > >means punishment... it means dealing out more pain. > > And, in the fantasyland where you reside, no criminal would ever be > incarcarated? You fail to realize that does more harm, causes more > pain, than good. I think that most criminals exist because of fear, intolerance, greed, and selfishness. If we work to remove those things from civilization, we remove the criminals without putting them in prison. > The purpose of a criminal trial is to assign guilt - finding truth, > figuring out what happened, for a reason. And, like it or not, that > reason is to punish. I know how the world currently works. I'm saying that it's wrong. How is that punishment maintaining justice? How is the wrong righted through the dealing of pain and suffering? > >When the trial is finished, we should be looking at what really > >happened and asking "what can we do to make this situation better?" > >rather than "what can we do to make life worse for the guilty?" > > Another false dichotomy. Making life worse for the guilty can quite > often make the situation better. You're just ignoring the harm done to the guilty as though that's not part of "the situation". > Of course it's a button-pusher. As I explained to Jeffrey, it would be > inappropriate to compare say Ashcroft to Hitler, but not another > genocidal maniac to Hitler. Well, if we take your view and make the analogies very narrow and apply only to very limited aspects of the related people's personalities and actions with no regard for scale or context, then I think we can make LOTS of appropriate analogies between Ashcroft and Hitler in their fear, intolerance, and personal insecurities and sexual hang-ups. > >I'm showing vital, healthy skepticism. > > No, you're showing a sick, twisted cynicism. There hasn't even been a > trial yet, but you've already decided that it will be a sham. I do believe that you have some kind of veil over your eyes, sir. I wrote no such thing. I wrote only that I hope it is fair and that I think it will be difficult to create a trial that was not a sham in Iraq today. If you read something else, it was projected from your own prejudiced mind. > >Liberty can only be maintained with eternal vigilance against tyranny. > > And such vigilance demands action from time to time. Sure thing. > >You don't find people guilty of wrong-doing in a court of law. > > Yes, you do. Good argument... still wrong, though. The court only issues a decision about the guilt or innocence of breaking a crime. Wrong-doing is extremely subjective and depends on each individual person's belief system. Law-breaking is more objective (though, of course, not completely) and doesn't really depend on beliefs so much. There are LOTS of laws that I don't think it's wrong to break. And when a person is convicted of breaking those laws, I will readily agree that they are guilty of the crime, but not of any wrong-doing. > >Courts determine whether or not law was broken. Wrong-doing and > >law-breaking are very different things and only sometimes coincide in > >one action. > > They're not "very" different, although there is a slight distinction. > Ideally, law-breaking should always be a subset of wrong-doing. That would require all people to be of one moral and ethical mind. This would halt debate and progress in those areas instantly. The only people that want that would be, by definition, hardened conservatives. Now, some people might want law-breaking to be a subset of what the majority call wrong-doing... some thing that law-breaking should be a subset of what the rich and powerful call wrong-doing... still others would like law-breaking to be a subset (preferably, the subset whose complement is an empty set) of what the Pope calls wrong-doing. > Your nit-picking is annoying. Unfortunately, it's still necessary. These nits are killing people. > >If Saddam Hussein's armies had marched on Mecca and Jerusalem, for > >example, we would have had a more analogous situation. > > How about Kuwait and Iran? How about funding acts of war (or what is > more popularly called "terrorism" in this situation) against Israel? I think those are on a very different scale than the acts of Hitler. Perhaps if he had stopped at Poland, we would have a better analogy. But he didn't. > >There's a difference of an order of magnitude. > > Right. Good. > But there's a similarity in the order of magnitude as well, in the sense > that in both cases, we're talking about extremely large numbers of > people. Huh?!? Do you even know what an order of magnitude IS? There's no "similarity". They're either the same or different and if they're different, they're different by some amount. > There's no argument that the unjust twist morality for their own > purposes. But, there is a difference between "murder" and "justifiable > homicide." And that's exactly HOW the unjust twist morality for their own purposes. The definition of "justifiable homicide" is probably something like "killing that serves my purposes". > >The only way to prevent that kind of atrocity is to reject all killing > >and all intentional pain and suffering as immoral. > > Hardly... sometimes to prevent a greater atrocity, one must kill and > cause pain and suffering. Ah, see... here's the root of the disagreement, I think. Just because it's the best choice that is practical sometimes, doesn't mean it isn't immoral in my book. Sometimes you believe you have to do things that are wrong. They're not any less wrong because of that, though. Choosing the lesser of evils does not make that least evil NOT evil. > Rejecting all killing and pain only works when every single person > agrees to it. Not necessarily a goal we shouldn't shoot for, and you > and I would probably agree on some of the ways to eventually achieve it > - but in the meantime, complete pacifism practiced by a few will only > allow massive atrocities to occur. Rather than prevent it, you open the > door for it. I disagree with that and it's pretty clear that we don't agree on the way to eventually achieve the goal. It will never be the case that all people will change their minds at the same time. Someone will be first and someone else will be second and so on to the last human being. You're arguing that the system only works if we all agree, but then you refuse to let anyone embrace it until everyone agrees to embrace it. But, by that logic, it wouldn't be right to even agree to embrace it until you know everyone is going to agree to agree to embrace it. You never get there. I'm not the first person to agree to reject intentional hurting of others... but I'm one of many and I hope that one day we will be most and maybe even all. Every journey begins with a single step. > >Your double-standard is the classic US/them dichotomy. If we think > >it's right, it's justified. > > Exactly. But you wrote that there was no double standard... > There's always a context to consider. We have no other guide, in a > situation, be it a decision for peace or war, than what we think is > "right," hopefully based on a thorough assessment of the facts and all > possible courses of action. OK, so if "right" is subjective (which it is) and killing is "right" when you think a particular way about the situation, then what makes a person "wrong" is thinking differently than you do... and punishment is for people who don't think like you even if they act just like you. So all crime is thoughtcrime. Pardon me for being very freaked out by this. > >If we don't think it's right, it's not... regardless of what the person > >who did it thinks. > > Regardless? Hardly. So what if the other person thinks they were justified in their killing? Do you punish them less? > Quite often, it is the thinking and actions of the other person, for > example them thinking they want you dead, and then attempting to kill > you, which forces you into action. Uh, that's not the same "thinking". "Think" was intended in my sentence to be a synonym of "judge", as in "I think that's wrong." You used "think" to mean "to have a thought" which doesn't have to be a judgment. We're talking about how the other person judges their own actions as right or wrong, as justified or not. > No one would assert that you don't have to take into consideration the > other person when coming to your own conclusion about what is or is not > right. I meant that it doesn't matter if the other person thought they were in the right or not... the punishment is determined by the judging party's evaluation of right and wrong, not the accused's. The system automatically assumes that the value systems that are not already represented in the law are invalid. It's VERY one-sided. > > > Sure, there's a difference in number of people killed and number of > > > nations attacked when comparing the three. No one is saying that > > > the numbers are exactly the same, only that the three are comparable > > > in the fact they were responsible for the torture and deaths of > > > extremely large numbers of innocent civilians, and, especially in > > > terms of Saddam and Hitler, since this point has now been brought > > > up, in aggressiveness toward other countries. > > > >This whole paragraph assumes guilt. > > These are merely the facts of the matter, which show responsibility. It's a fact that Saddam was "responsible for the torture and deaths of extremely large numbers of innocent civilians"? Who determined this? Does he claim responsibility? Has he been held responsible by some party that has held a fair trial to make that judgment? Until one of the last two takes place, it's not a fact of the matter. > >I'd really like to hear how a defense of liberty, brotherhood, and > >equality can come from someone who hates humanity. > > So would I. If they are incongruous in your mind, how do you get from one to the other? It seems like such a contradiction would cause you to reconcile your thoughts... unless you're skilled in doublethink. I'm not. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #468 ********************************