About Trek liquids

On 2004-08-21, Dan Volker penned:

That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its
done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

For it to be moral, it has to be done out of realization that something is
right, and that you have a duty to do it, even if you can't stand it....
The example : you have a scrawny child named JD who is wandering aimlessly
outside in a snowstorm, clearly homeless and certainly bound to freeze to
death. If you take him in to your home because it makes you feel good to
help kids, or because you feel you will go to hell if you don't, you're act
of kindness or Christian fellowship is not moral, just nice for JD.
Alternatively, if you saw the poor wretch of a JD, freezing in the cold,
and thought to yourself, "wow, that dirty little beggar really is
disgusting--I bet he stinks to high heaven" --- but then continue to think "
...but no matter how much I don't like him, I realize he has a right to
life, and I have a societal DUTY to prevent his death, by taking him into
my home tonight"---this scenario would be morally motivated ( by Kantian
standards). Of course, it would set up a future in which the world has to
suffer the asinine behavior of JD, but Kantian moral distinctions don't
allow this to be taken into consideration;-)

I also don't care for religion as the basis of morality. Of course,
philosophy has its own troubles.

I liked reading Kant, too. Of course, if you take it to its logical
extreme, if you derive any satisfaction from the fact that you've just
done something moral, then you have to question your motives again. The
only way to know you've been moral in Kant's world is to hate everything
you do, but do it anyway out of a sense of duty. I'm not quite so
stringent in my requirements. Also, your argument is internally
inconsistent. Where did duty come from? This concept of right to life?
That sounds an awful lot like one of those religious rules you so
dislike, or maybe it's a societal rule -- just as arbitrary. You're just
moving the argument one step back; you're not eliminating the question.

I personally much preferred Kant's universality principle, in which you
determine morality by imagining what the world would be like if everyone
acted as you did. Now, to an example that actually applies to our
situation. If everyone defended themselves against JD every time he got
a burr under his saddle, no one would ever get around to actually
talking about mountain biking. So, for the greater good and my personal
comfort, I decided that it's better to ignore him so that I can actually
talk about mountain biking, which is why I came here in the first place.
I can't control JD's action's (and neither can you), but I can control
my own.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

On 2004-08-21, ireman_1 penned:


It's been a while since I've been forced to read Immanuel Kant, but I
certainly remember one of his basic tenants was that people should *never*
be treated as a means, but *always* be treated as an ends (much as your
example above-the child received what was needed to get through the night
because it was right, not because it would cause the person to feel proper).
My issue with your use of Kant's (always loved that name associated with his
thoughts) philosophy in this interaction you have created with Jerome
Daniels is that, according to Kant, a person's "will" is what is to be
respected *and* that people have their own "moral will." Enforcing your
moral will is a means to an end and thus anti-Kant.

Thanks for the reminder -- I'd forgotten about Kant's "people as ends in
themselves" thing, which is kind of sad since it's fundamental to everything
he talks about. I'd better find those philosophy books and take a crash
refresher course ...

You have to love philosophy. Regardless of what book someone's nose is in
you can find someone else's nose in a book (equally as researched, well
thought out and "supported") that is 180 degrees away. Philosophy,
religion, politics and sports. Everyone is "right" and none of us have a
clue. I'm currently reading an interesting book on pragmatism and the
issues with it. It's not as entertaining as the last Kinky Friedman, but...

Sometimes you can find the 180 degree position in the same book! Especially
as philosophers often explore multiple opposing views before settling down to
a point of view they like (which is often no better supported than the others
they've explored).

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2004-08-21, Dan Volker penned:

That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since
its
done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

For it to be moral, it has to be done out of realization that something
is
right, and that you have a duty to do it, even if you can't stand it....
The example : you have a scrawny child named JD who is wandering
aimlessly
outside in a snowstorm, clearly homeless and certainly bound to freeze
to
death. If you take him in to your home because it makes you feel good to
help kids, or because you feel you will go to hell if you don't, you're
act
of kindness or Christian fellowship is not moral, just nice for JD.
Alternatively, if you saw the poor wretch of a JD, freezing in the
cold,
and thought to yourself, "wow, that dirty little beggar really is
disgusting--I bet he stinks to high heaven" --- but then continue to
think "
...but no matter how much I don't like him, I realize he has a right to
life, and I have a societal DUTY to prevent his death, by taking him
into
my home tonight"---this scenario would be morally motivated ( by Kantian
standards). Of course, it would set up a future in which the world has
to
suffer the asinine behavior of JD, but Kantian moral distinctions don't
allow this to be taken into consideration;-)

I also don't care for religion as the basis of morality. Of course,
philosophy has its own troubles.

I liked reading Kant, too. Of course, if you take it to its logical
extreme, if you derive any satisfaction from the fact that you've just
done something moral, then you have to question your motives again. The
only way to know you've been moral in Kant's world is to hate everything
you do, but do it anyway out of a sense of duty. I'm not quite so
stringent in my requirements. Also, your argument is internally
inconsistent. Where did duty come from? This concept of right to life?
That sounds an awful lot like one of those religious rules you so
dislike, or maybe it's a societal rule -- just as arbitrary. You're just
moving the argument one step back; you're not eliminating the question.

I personally much preferred Kant's universality principle, in which you
determine morality by imagining what the world would be like if everyone
acted as you did. Now, to an example that actually applies to our
situation. If everyone defended themselves against JD every time he got
a burr under his saddle, no one would ever get around to actually
talking about mountain biking. So, for the greater good and my personal
comfort, I decided that it's better to ignore him so that I can actually
talk about mountain biking, which is why I came here in the first place.
I can't control JD's action's (and neither can you), but I can control
my own.

--
monique


Good Response !

Dan V

"pas" wrote in message
...
Dan Volker wrote:

In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage
of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral",
that it has little meaning in the scheme of things.

Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor?

penny


That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior,
since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on
some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and
terribly disrespectful
of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that
attitude incredibly offensive.

The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell?
Wow.
That is a heck of a way to live your life.

pas

I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not
read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of
their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as
possible.

Dan V

"ireman_1" wrote in message
news:ireman_1.1bcfmy@no-

It's been a while since I've been forced to read Immanuel Kant, but I
certainly remember one of his basic tenants was that people should
*never* be treated as a means, but *always* be treated as an ends (much
as your example above-the child received what was needed to get through
the night because it was right, not because it would cause the person to
feel proper). My issue with your use of Kant's (always loved that name
associated with his thoughts) philosophy in this interaction you have
created with Jerome Daniels is that, according to Kant, a person's "will"
is what is to be respected *and* that people have their own "moral will."
Enforcing your moral will is a means to an end and thus anti-Kant.

Dan Volker's will, Jerome Daniel's will; which is correct? Both if you
follow logic as some thinkers lay it out. How does one reconcile this?
Well, we can test that "might makes right" thing and "see" who is right.
That gets old though. We can allow for disparate thoughts and understand
that the world will continue to spin despite others stupidity (as we
*individuals see it). We can....blah, blah, blah


JD is a dick often times. You are not going to change his presentation
in this NG or his thoughts of himself. If you follow Kant you should
allow for him being an ass hole and understand that what is his will come
and that it is not your place to hasten it/decide what "it" is.

You have to love philosophy. Regardless of what book someone's nose is
in you can find someone else's nose in a book (equally as researched,
well thought out and "supported") that is 180 degrees away. Philosophy,
religion, politics and sports. Everyone is "right" and none of us have a
clue. I'm currently reading an interesting book on pragmatism and the
issues with it. It's not as entertaining as the last Kinky Friedman,
but...

Take care, please.

K.


--
ireman_1

I found Kant more interesting than most of the other philosophers, and when
someone trots out a religious example as being moral, I usually kant help
myself ... I have to pull out Kant's much stronger argument for right and
wrong.
Good point about the dueling wills. I'll just add that my posting was for
the social good of the group ( trying to help someone who came to AMB
looking for advice on a mountain bike I'm familiar with) , whereas JD was
posting with an anti-social intent.

Regards,
Dan V

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker =

wrote:


"pas" wrote in message
...
Dan Volker wrote:

In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentag=
e
of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral=
",
that it has little meaning in the scheme of things.

Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor?

penny


That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior,
since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely =
on
some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, =
and
terribly disrespectful
of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find th=
at
attitude incredibly offensive.

The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hel=
l?
Wow.
That is a heck of a way to live your life.

pas

I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did n=
ot
read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors=
of
their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as
possible.

Dan V


Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting =

your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network=
, =

or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters =
to =

ask about the best DH bike they have available.

-- =

Slacker

"Slacker" wrote in message
newspsc3r6yn6m83lxu@slacker...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker
wrote:


"pas" wrote in message
...
Dan Volker wrote:

In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage
of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral",
that it has little meaning in the scheme of things.

Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor?

penny


That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior,
since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on
some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and
terribly disrespectful
of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that
attitude incredibly offensive.

The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell?
Wow.
That is a heck of a way to live your life.

pas

I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not
read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of
their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as
possible.

Dan V


Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting
your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network,
or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters to
ask about the best DH bike they have available.

--
Slacker

So how long have you been with Huffy?

Dan V

"Slacker" wrote in message
newspsc3r6yn6m83lxu@slacker...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker
wrote:


"pas" wrote in message
...
Dan Volker wrote:

In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage
of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral",
that it has little meaning in the scheme of things.

Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor?

penny


That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior,
since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation.

good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on
some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and
terribly disrespectful
of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that
attitude incredibly offensive.

The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell?
Wow.
That is a heck of a way to live your life.

pas

I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not
read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of
their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as
possible.

Dan V


Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting
your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network,
or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters to
ask about the best DH bike they have available.

--
Slacker

Hey man, don't be dissing Huffy!!

My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy.
Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike!

El 19 Aug 2004 00:19:56 GMT, Stephen Baker va
escriu

engamarus says:

In Collserola there are plenty of tracks that you can pass with a rigid
bike or hardtail, but you don't enjoy them, because you were braking all
the time and with a severe risk of falling due to plenty free rocks. Not
about technics.

A-hah! We obviously have a different concept of "fun". That sounds
great to
me.
Life is all about the differences. ;-)
(Vive la difference!)

Ummmmm! Notice that my mother language is Catalan, not English, and it's
not the same. My English is limited .

Reading again what I wrote, I would agree that is funny. By about 5-10-15
minutes. But when you are braking all-the-time, non-stop during 30-40-50
minutes, first with two fingers, later with one in order to change between
fingers because they are tired, moving all the time the bike, hiting all
the time the chain against the frame... and you look someone advancing you
easily with a FS and sit down, enjoying, then you think: "Ey, Houston, we
have a problem".


--

Gamarús

TBF says:

My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy.
Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike!

But did they stay with ya, or go running towards the first 10-speed rider they
saw?.... ;-)