Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Re: FT

Expand Messages
  • JDKromkowski
    I ve only been removed from court once. And I still won 75% of what was at issue (he tried the matter without me) because the judge knew I was right and that
    Message 1 of 111 , Nov 14, 2012
      I've only been removed from court once.  And I still won 75% of what was at issue (he tried the matter without me) because the judge knew I was right and that he was being a jerk for having bailiff remove me because I had the audacity to demand that I put my argument for his recusal on the record (where it could have been reviewed). 

      Another attorney told that if you don't get thrown out once in your career, you may not be doing your job as a litigator or have not tried enough cases.

      I understand fully where your are coming from (I think) in your reluctance to embrace the concept of "natural rights" especially when in a free democratic society we usually end up being able to negotiate our way to something that resembles natural right ( the civil war and slavery being a counter example).  Btw, when it comes to settling claims people know that I am a fair and reasonable albeit tough negotiator.

      As to Roy's "evolutionary" theory of natural rights, well he might change his name to thracymicus. Survival of the rightist, was also part of the pseudo-scientific  "soviet" notion of human rights. It is really a stupid understanding how slowly genetic evolution takes place and truly a pseudo-scientific and false notion that somehow genes carry/create culture and ideas. It just doesn't work that way.

      I am hoping that he just couched it in those terms to try to avoid getting clubbed by you for "god/religion".  You really use that one way too much.  People can have reasonable secular discussions about the nature of what it means to be human to its fullest extent, and from there intuit and or derive an outline of what natural (ie in accordance with our nature) rights might look like and should be protected.  That those secular reasonable discussion might in the end look like  the 2000 plus year tradition of the church :) should not upset agnostics and atheist and or non Catholics.  You call always save face and claim that even a blind chicken can get a kernel now and then.  We won't mind.


      Sent from my iPad written in haste and without proofing as all of my posts are.

      On Nov 13, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:


      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
      > Hate to even get involved in this conversation. Roy, you have created such
      > a narrow view of human rights that I must dissent. And no wonder Walt,
      > prefers to avoid the concept of "natural" human rights and prefers what
      > used to be considered the "soviet model" human rights are that which
      > government decides they are.

      Ha ha. I'd love to see you litigate a case. I bet you're a laugh riot. I mean if you haven't had your ticket pulled.


      > Now, in a truly free, democratice and
      > transparent society that may get us eventually to something close to
      > "natural human rights".
      > I start from a different place - "human". What is the nature of being
      > "human"? When figure out that then we sort out the rights (and
      > obligations) that would "naturally flow" - yes, life, liberty, property
      > but also including but not limited to work, education, basic health care,
      > leisure both while we can work and when we can't, family, exposure to the
      > arts, as well as freedom from all sorts of things, and the right to
      > sufficient land to cultivate one's garden and provide for one's self and
      > family, all constrained and supported by the obligations of being human.
      > It could be that having a good government is also a basic human right.
      > JDK

    • Harry Pollard
      JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –
      Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012

        Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.

        With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.


        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   CA   90243
               (818) 352-4141

        On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

        Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species.  There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".  

        Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy).  It also drove the communists crazy too.   Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?


        Sent from my iPad

        On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:


        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
        > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
        > > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
        > > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
        > > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
        > >
        > Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
        > It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
        > reason I won't hide my background.
        > This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
        > charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
        > mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
        > Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
        > JDK

        *shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.

        Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.

        Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.

        One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.