About Trek liquids

On 21 Aug 2004 01:32:38 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:

Might makes right in a political and legal sense.

No, might merely makes legal. BIG difference.

Nah, might doesn't become right in a legal sense either - if a big guy
pounds on a little guy it becomes "assault". I'm pretty sure that the fact
that the other guy was talking smack doesn't really exonerate anyone.

The only place that might makes right is in politics. A big, powerful
country can attack a smaller country - killing thousands - and although it
might not be legal or moral, it still might be considered acceptable. Its
all a matter of how they play the game.

As far as morals go, I dunno. We're all morally "supposed" to be decent to
each other, and - lets be real - the vast majority of time we all do. I
can only relate to the stuff Dan talks about from back when I was a kid,
and even then no one really had to worry about consequenses of
smack-talking because there were very few actual fights. And most of
them looked more like hugging contests to me.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

"JD" wrote in message
om...
"TeutonicBeerFart" wrote in message
ogers.com...
I like Trek bikes man, MTB and Road. Everyone likes what they ride, if
it's
working for ya, beat the hell out of it until the time for a new one
comes
along.

Yeah, disposable bikes are the best! It sounds like you enjoy riding
bikes that are known to be less than sound and don't mind throwing
money at the cheapie bike companies. Those bike companies really love
media-fed dimwits.

JD

Ah..The Disposal Dad speaks

"JD" wrote in message
om...
"cc" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
om...
"cc" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
om...
"cc" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
m...
"cc" wrote in message
...
See previous post. Bikes were attached properly.
Problem=design
flaw.


You are such a jackass, JD. Only you (or MV) could judge someone
solely
by
their email address. Grow up.

That's a very white flag you've got there. Did you use bleach on it?


I'm sorry, is this a contest or something? I don't come to usenet to
'win'
arguments.

The only reason I entered this thread was because I think it's weak when
people are discouraged from offering their opinion by the antagonizing
comments of others, such as yourself or MV. If you think it's cool to
"say
whatever, whenever" then you would respect that, as I do.

And for the record -- I really do respect honesty, but part of becoming
an
adult is realizing that it's not acceptable to personally attack others,
especially when unprovoked. There is a distinct difference between
telling
it how you think it is, and telling someone they are a worthless moron
for
thinking differently. It seems to make you happy, insulting people you
don't
know, using archaic stereotypes and grade-school taunts. Whatever, man.

As Monique correctly pointed out, noone is going to change you,
especially
not me. I have, however, grown weary of responding to this thread.
*Plonk*

cc

Yup, Clorox liquid bleach on that flag as indicated by both "whatever"
and "plonk". You wanna come over and do my laundry too?

JD
Bitch

"JD" wrote in message
...
"Shaun Rimmer" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
om...
"spademan o---[\) *"
cc.gov.uk wrote in
message ...
This thread has been highly amusing. And if half of it is true
theres a
helluva lot more differences between America and the UK than I
realised...

The fact of the matter is that there are a helluva lot of differences
between Vo2lker's fantasyland and the rest of the USA. It's pretty
sad, in an amusing way.

JD

Go on Jock Duff, type something witty!

Using wits with the witless is a waste of time.

JD

How's the hairless one?

(JD) wrote in message . com...
"TeutonicBeerFart" wrote in message ogers.com...
I like Trek bikes man, MTB and Road. Everyone likes what they ride, if it's
working for ya, beat the hell out of it until the time for a new one comes
along.

Yeah, disposable bikes are the best! It sounds like you enjoy riding
bikes that are known to be less than sound and don't mind throwing
money at the cheapie bike companies. Those bike companies really love
media-fed dimwits.

Do you mean "disposable" as in a lifetime warranty?

"Disposable" as in break it and get a replacemt like the one you
owned? Sounds like a good deal.

"Media-fed" vs your Usenet mis-information?

"pas" wrote in message
...
Dan Volker wrote:
"Stephen Baker" wrote in message
...
Dan V says:

and in the real world, might does make right, even when its
wrong

Wrong - Especially when it's wrong. Might will never make "right",
only "what you WILL do", which is a very different beast indeed.

Steve

Steve,
Either you live in la la land, or think AMB is the real world.
I was talking about the real world when I said "might makes
right"...its sad, but its the way of the world.
Look at the global balance of power. Look at what controls billions
of people. Might makes right in a political and legal sense.

no guessing who you voted for.

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.

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;-)

Dan V

"BB" wrote in message
...
On 21 Aug 2004 01:32:38 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:

Might makes right in a political and legal sense.

No, might merely makes legal. BIG difference.

Nah, might doesn't become right in a legal sense either - if a big guy
pounds on a little guy it becomes "assault". I'm pretty sure that the fact
that the other guy was talking smack doesn't really exonerate anyone.


This example is a place where legal corresponds to "right". There are many
places where legal will have little to do with what is "right", and the
"Might" of the legal system in our country will enforce the law, over the
much weaker individual, even if he is "Right". My brother is a Prosecuting
attorney, and even he will admit this. Remember, its an adversarial system,
based on past rulings. Frequently scenarios come up which should be seen
differently, but if the adverserial and evidential system does not work as
you would "hope" ( which it often does not), then what is right will lose to
what is legal. And "might" will make right.




The only place that might makes right is in politics. A big, powerful
country can attack a smaller country - killing thousands - and although it
might not be legal or moral, it still might be considered acceptable. Its
all a matter of how they play the game.

Exactly my thoughts here.



As far as morals go, I dunno. We're all morally "supposed" to be decent to
each other, and - lets be real - the vast majority of time we all do. I
can only relate to the stuff Dan talks about from back when I was a kid,
and even then no one really had to worry about consequenses of
smack-talking because there were very few actual fights. And most of
them looked more like hugging contests to me.

--
-BB-

This brings me back more to whether you should "turn the other cheek", as
Monique has suggested, or if you base your actions in life on what you think
you ought to do, on what duties you have, and on what you think is right,
then in many instances, you can not turn the other cheek.
Personally, I've always thought that turning the other cheek was a very
stupid way to live.

Dan V

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

On 2004-08-21, Dan Volker penned:

This brings me back more to whether you should "turn the other cheek", as
Monique has suggested, or if you base your actions in life on what you think
you ought to do, on what duties you have, and on what you think is right,
then in many instances, you can not turn the other cheek. Personally, I've
always thought that turning the other cheek was a very stupid way to live.

Don't try to paraphrase me. I said nothing about turning the other cheek.
There's no christian philosophy or anything involved in what I suggested.
Usenet is not real life, and you're wasting an awful lot of mental space
fighting a pointless battle. In the meantime, you've made some truly
ridiculous statements that have made more than one person in the group wonder
if you have a few screws loose -- and I'm not talking about your bike!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe your words
didn't come out right. Really, in order to wage a usenet campaign, you
need either strong persuasive skills (sometimes that's not enough) or a
huge fan-base who will support you right or wrong. It doesn't look like
you have either.

Killfile the dude. There's no shame; no one will even know if you have him
killfiled or are finally doing the sensible thing and ignoring him. As they
said in kindergarten, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will
never hurt me."

--
monique

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

Dan Volker Dan Volker wrote
"Stephen Baker" wrote in message
...
Dan V says:

and in the real world, might does make right, even when its
wrong

Wrong - Especially when it's wrong. Might will never make
"right",
only "what you WILL do", which is a very different beast indeed.

Steve

Steve,
Either you live in la la land, or think AMB is the real world.
I was talking about the real world when I said "might makes
right"...its sad, but its the way of the world.
Look at the global balance of power. Look at what controls
billions
of people. Might makes right in a political and legal
sense.[/color]

no guessing who you voted for.

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[/color]
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;-)

Dan V


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