Tom Sherman - liberal, socialist, communist!

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more liberal
than Mr. Sherman

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more liberal
than Mr. Sherman


If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you change
from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out to be?

Disturbing.

Keats

Well for one, I don't believe in God. I accept my cultural heritage as a Jew
but basically I consider Judiasm a monotheistic religion and I don't go in
for monothesim.

For two, I acknowledge that the human species is tribal and territorial but
I don't accept it as an endpoint. I am human and as a human, I am not
different from other humans. Infact I am closely related to them. In my
opinion, they are all my brothers and sisters. Even those that would not
acknowledge me as a brother are still my family.

I don't confine myself to the limitations of what I was born into. I am a
nut. I am hardly a realist for if I were I should surely know better and the
truth is I don't.

Sooner or later, my life will come to an end but if my vision only reaches
as few a two other people then I have done my job. If there is a
monotheistic god then he/she/it will be thrilled with what I have done. If
he/she/it isn't, then it isn't a god I want anything to do with anyway.

Clear enough?

Jeff

"Keats" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more
liberal than Mr. Sherman


If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you
change from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out to
be?

Disturbing.

Keats

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...
Well for one, I don't believe in God. I accept my cultural heritage as a
Jew but basically I consider Judiasm a monotheistic religion and I don't
go in for monothesim.

For two, I acknowledge that the human species is tribal and territorial
but I don't accept it as an endpoint. I am human and as a human, I am not
different from other humans. Infact I am closely related to them. In my
opinion, they are all my brothers and sisters. Even those that would not
acknowledge me as a brother are still my family.

I don't confine myself to the limitations of what I was born into. I am a
nut. I am hardly a realist for if I were I should surely know better and
the truth is I don't.

Sooner or later, my life will come to an end but if my vision only reaches
as few a two other people then I have done my job. If there is a
monotheistic god then he/she/it will be thrilled with what I have done. If
he/she/it isn't, then it isn't a god I want anything to do with anyway.

Clear enough?

Jeff

"Keats" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message

He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and
has not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more
liberal than Mr. Sherman


If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you
change from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out
to be?

Disturbing.

Keats




You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for" monotheism,
but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information. If you don't
believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you go in for
polytheism?

It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family what
do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a a
thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do it?

Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house containing
enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in time of war and
a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on the way to school.
I would certainly hope you would be able to make a moral distinction here.
If you can't then I doubt you are capable of making any moral distinctions.

Keats

(not Tom) Keats LIED:
...
Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house containing
enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in time of war and
a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on the way to school....

Oh Bull****!

Change to "Sherman claims moral equivalence to deliberate targeting of
non-combatant civilians by military forces to a suicide bomber blowing
up a bus of school children on the way to school" and I will not argue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Keats" wrote in message
. ..

You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information.
If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you
go in for polytheism?


I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not exist
creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up to "god".
They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary chemestry to
them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why would there be
only one? They probably have no interest in us, however, unless we are
somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and concepts and they
probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider this to be certain. I
actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider it to be more likely than
the monotheistic god, however.

It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family
what do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a a
thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do it?


No! You can not stop violence with violence. If you do, it is a temporary
victory at best. It is only when the brothers themselves decide to stop
fighting that lasting peace can be achieved.

Did you miss the part of my reply where I said I am a nut and hardly a
realist? I'm putting in a separate paragraph so that you see it.

Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house
containing enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in
time of war and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on
the way to school. I would certainly hope you would be able to make a
moral distinction here. If you can't then I doubt you are capable of
making any moral distinctions.

I never compared myself to Sherman at the level of details. I see and
understand his point but I find anybody blowing up anyone for any reason to
be morally reprehensible. You are asking me which is worse? I refuse to
acknowledge that the question even has a basis in real ethical values.

The level at which Sherman's statement applies is that both groups are
blowing up people because of an idea that they believe in. You say one is
better than the other. I'm sure you can twist it to a point where I will
agree with you. That doesn't make either act a moral one. The commandment
(if you believe in them) doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless it is
necessary to prevent some other tragedy" But we pretend that some killing is
moral and some killing isn't. I'll grant you that some people believe that
some killing is necessary but you will never get me to say that any killing
is moral. It isn't.

You, my friend, need to study your morals a bit more. The Sunday School
class that I is from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM on Sundays. My students are 3rd,
4th, and 5th graders and most of them have been in my class for at least one
year. I don't think you'd have any trouble catching up, however.

Jeff

Ed,

There is no use in responding to you with substance because you don't really
want serious discussion. You simply pretend to. I am giving you attention
because that is clearly what you want.

By all means please enjoy it and know that I, your humble servant, am
eternally committed to doing what makes you happy as long as it does not
take away from the happiness of myself and others.

Happy Trails Ed

Jeff
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Keats" wrote in message
. ..

You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information.
If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do
you go in for polytheism?


I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not
exist creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up
to "god". They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary
chemestry to them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why
would there be only one? They probably have no interest in us, however,
unless we are somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and
concepts and they probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider
this to be certain. I actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider
it to be more likely than the monotheistic god, however.

Stop reading all that ridiculous **** you are reading. It is leading you
astray. Who ever heard of a Jew who believed in multiple Gods. Even
Christians and Muslims are not that stupid!

It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family
what do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a
a thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do
it?


No! You can not stop violence with violence. If you do, it is a temporary
victory at best. It is only when the brothers themselves decide to stop
fighting that lasting peace can be achieved.

Nonsense. When you kill an enemy, he is quite dead. That is all that
matters.

Did you miss the part of my reply where I said I am a nut and hardly a
realist? I'm putting in a separate paragraph so that you see it.

Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house
containing enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in
time of war and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on
the way to school. I would certainly hope you would be able to make a
moral distinction here. If you can't then I doubt you are capable of
making any moral distinctions.

I never compared myself to Sherman at the level of details. I see and
understand his point but I find anybody blowing up anyone for any reason
to be morally reprehensible. You are asking me which is worse? I refuse
to acknowledge that the question even has a basis in real ethical values.

Everything under the sun can be calculated better or worse. Hells Bells, I
do it all the time!

The level at which Sherman's statement applies is that both groups are
blowing up people because of an idea that they believe in. You say one is
better than the other. I'm sure you can twist it to a point where I will
agree with you. That doesn't make either act a moral one. The commandment
(if you believe in them) doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless it is
necessary to prevent some other tragedy" But we pretend that some killing
is moral and some killing isn't. I'll grant you that some people believe
that some killing is necessary but you will never get me to say that any
killing is moral. It isn't.

The good guys (the Israeli Defense Forces) are killing the bad guys (the
Palestinian Terrorists). What is there about this that you do not
understand?

You, my friend, need to study your morals a bit more. The Sunday School
class that I is from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM on Sundays. My students are
3rd, 4th, and 5th graders and most of them have been in my class for at
least one year. I don't think you'd have any trouble catching up,
however.

It is OK to preach your idealism to children, but sooner or later we grow
up and demand something more than that kind of pabulum.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:hMSdnXeAipjfjF7bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

You are an adult after all, aren't you?


That is one of my favorite questions. In my opinion, and I'm being serious,
"Adult" is a concept that is no more useful than "God".

When you ask that question, you do not mean "Are you biologically mature?".
The answer to that question is yes. I am sexually mature, have facial,
underarm, and pubic hair. I also have grey hair and male pattern baldness at
this point in my life. I have also reached the full height which I am going
to attain. So, biologically, I am an adult.

However, you are asking a very different question. You are asking if I have
accepted a set of world views and opinions the conform to a specific social
norm. The answer to that question is, as I have said many times, no.

What is an Adult, Ed? You are using that word to mean so much more than
biological. You are asking me something like "Don't you realize that you
have childish ideas and that you should adjust them to be more like mine?"

You see, Ed, I like childish ideas. You've never raised a child so you'll
have to take my word here but...

It is far easier to settle disputes between young children. They are not as
stuck in their positions. Ultimately they would rather play than argue. As
they age it gets harder and harder to settle disputes. They come to feel
that they must win for winnings sake. At times they would rather argue than
play because the outcome of the arguement means so much to their egos and
sense of self. As they get older it gets worse and worse.

So you are asking me if I've fallen victim to this thing that we call
"Adulthood"?

Yes I have but I think I see it for what it is.

When the day comes (and I hope it will) that I can ride again, you and I
could, if we were in the same place, get together and ride. Assuming that
the weather is nice we could enjoy the day. We could stop for a cold drink,
enjoy the ride, argue a bit just for fun, and just have a good time.

Do you mean to say that I should have strong feelings about you that would
keep this from happening just because you and I have radically different
ideas about how the world is?

I am trying to move backwards. I would rather play than argue. I don't care
who is right. I've already confessed to being a fool. If you can't tolerate
that type of person then don't come near me.

So you tell me, am I an Adult? I hope the answer is No!

Happy Trails, Ed.

Jeff

Jeff Grippe wrote:
"Keats" wrote in message
. ..
You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information.
If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you
go in for polytheism?


I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not exist
creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up to "god".
They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary chemestry to
them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why would there be
only one? They probably have no interest in us, however, unless we are
somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and concepts and they
probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider this to be certain. I
actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider it to be more likely than
the monotheistic god, however....

Bah! The Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with His
Noodly Appendage!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jeff Grippe wrote:
Ed,

There is no use in responding to you with substance because you don't really
want serious discussion....

HOT DOG! We have a wiener!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com