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

Re: Prolegomena To Any Future Aesthetics of Consensual Violence

Expand Messages
  • William
    Message 1 of 24 , Aug 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Bill,
      >
      > On 1 August 2011 02:26, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Herman
      > > > Herman, Money is the drug for me. I get down right delerious when I make
      > > money. In my example we used opiates not steroids. The loser came to the
      > > climb out of shape and ill equipped. He went into hypothermia and delerium
      > > with the drastic drop in temperature. We filled him with warm gator aid
      > > laced with mild opiates and checked him regularly as he was in a tent out of
      > > the storm. That he came back alive was none of his fault. Risk sports are
      > > for the meticulous people who take care of details,plan ahead and can
      > > innovate in the field. Being all fucked up does not fit in . I used to play
      > > hockey against guys that did speed. They were hell on wheels in the first
      > > period but we would beat them in the third. Drugs are not the answer in risk
      > > sports. Ive taken people to hospital for drunk skiing. Apres Ski comes after
      > > the sport. Drinking beer after hockey reduces pain and rehydrates,the
      > > Russians figured that out. So if you want some sort of puritanical ban on
      > > all drugs in all sports you would be the bore who would never be chosen for
      > > a team. But if you had a lot of money you could buy your way on. Bill
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > I am blessed / cursed with a memory of sorts, and just a year or two or go
      > you were recommending a bullet for Tim Leary because he spruiked LSD. Now
      > any suggestion that some drug usage ought to be examined gets your label
      > puritanical. Perhaps this is what Mary means when she considers some
      > thoughts not to be ideas; when they lack any rigour or consistency?
      >
      > Ciao
      >
      > Herman
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • fictiveparrot
      Heir Herman, Perhaps you read into my response. I am not violent. I have never taken steroids. I have played sports, and enjoyed them. I have had children and,
      Message 2 of 24 , Aug 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Heir Herman,

        Perhaps you read into my response. I am not violent. I have never taken steroids. I have played sports, and enjoyed them. I have had children and, yes, raised them. I am interested in people achieving their interests. If one interest is to be the best boxer, then they can do that as far as I am concerned... nothing even mildly evil about it. I think it is stupid to stop them. Let them beat the piss out of each other if that is what they like. Not stopping someone is much different than encouraging them. They makes their choices and they lie in it.

        >> "no, no... you can't be a policeman..."

        No one says that. It is a profession. You train for it. You can get killed doing it. It can be violent. It can be an outlet for violence and violent personalities. The difference is? I am not sure. Yet, people respect that as a professional choice... If you respect one, respect the other and be logically consistent. Box away, I say. Praise the military -- it isn't their fault the country goes to war.

        > Your comments are interesting in the way that
        > Breivik is interesting.

        I find it interesting that you would group me in with someone who is attempting to change the world to the way they see it using what I consider egotistical megolomanic egomaniacal etherfruitenspew. I am not going to hang signs telling you what to do with your abortion (I think you can take that in many ways, and, no, I don't think B. was all about abortion but may have invested in some directly or indirectly). I think people should follow their interests. Otherwise it is boring. If you want to make the argument that it is an interest to promote non-violence, well, I disagree: those consenting to violence amongst consenting consentors have consent. It is like getting your ass done as a volunteer, which apparently you know all about. On the other hand, promoting violence is not generally an interest, as if you do you bring it on to accept it yourself -- and if you can find some gawd awful reason to support the idea of continuation of the species it is incongrouous. In any case, most people would rather watch it on TV.

        > Ah yeah, you like meditating while on steroids?

        I wouldn't know. I am not interested in steroids myself. I have no problem with other people enjoying them. I am not sure quite what steroids would accomplish during meditation. I'm not sure how you see that as clarifying or funny.

        > You've never been a parent, or were a useless one.

        And you are either so opinionated as to be blind, so blind as to be a dwarf, or so sterile as to lick ice cream displays. I never did drugs. My father was a toxicologist who did lab research on marijuana and alcohol, and I learned all about them through his insight on his studies. Of course, I don't believe it all. It didn't make me want to do them. I learned about those substances and most of the other 'popular' drugs. One of my two kids did recreational MJ. Her parents did not. None of her friends did. One child made one choice, and the other the other. It was not a popular choice. It is a small test case, but in my world view a pretty valid one: role models don't mean shiit. People make their choices... unless you are a nazi and give them a choice. They make choices for different reasons, and you don't know them all no matter how f-ing smart-mouthed you seem to think you are.

        > Cheers

        Ya, drink much? That's being a good role model. But then are most alcoholics happy? and is it the lack of happiness that comes from the alcohol, or vice versa? Careful with the answer mr. lightningadingalingdong-rod.

        Are you one of those cause-effect nincompoops? I have a list about 500 miles long of things you need to explain, if so.

        So, weep weep about boxers dying. I suppose in your brilliance you want to ban the sport. And that will be fine till people decide to ban things that you like, like not taking criticism well and jumping to conclusions while trying to insinuate pixie-like whim into your prose. it never works when fat people get in a tutu.

        Snapping Crackled Pop
      • Herman
        Not Fictive ... My origins are Dutch, not German. Either way, heir means nothing in either language. In English, where you dabble, you are expressing that I
        Message 3 of 24 , Aug 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Not Fictive

          On 2 August 2011 15:33, fictiveparrot <knott12@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Heir Herman,
          >
          >
          My origins are Dutch, not German. Either way, heir means nothing in either
          language. In English, where you dabble, you are expressing that I have
          inherited something. Well, you're wrong, OK.

          Perhaps you read into my response.
          >
          I read your response.

          > I am not violent. I have never taken steroids.
          >
          You're the one who brought up steroids. I simply replied. For your
          convenience, you wrote:

          > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation

          If I should have gleaned from that snippet of wisdom that you have never
          taken steroids, and that you distance yourself from the violence that it
          provokes in folks, then perhaps you might learn to express yourself in
          English in such a way that you become understood.

          I have played sports, and enjoyed them. I have had children and, yes, raised
          > them. I am interested in people achieving their interests. If one interest
          > is to be the best boxer, then they can do that as far as I am concerned...
          >

          When is one a good boxer? Regularly kill or brain damage someone with their
          opening address?

          >nothing even mildly evil about it. I think it is stupid to stop them. Let
          them beat the piss out of each other if that is what they like. Not stopping
          someone is much different than encouraging them.

          I still doubt you have been a parent. Laissez-faire with kids promotes
          pugilism (english for boxing). Your father obviously was not a laissez-faire
          parent, but you deny his import.



          > They makes their choices and they lie in it.

          >
          > >> "no, no... you can't be a policeman..."
          >
          > No one says that. It is a profession.
          >

          I don't know who you are quoting. It is not me anyway. Korsakoff maybe?



          > You train for it. You can get killed doing it. It can be violent. It can be
          > an outlet for violence and violent personalities. The difference is? I am
          > not sure. Yet, people respect that as a professional choice... If you
          > respect one, respect the other and be logically consistent. Box away, I say.
          > Praise the military -- it isn't their fault the country goes to war.
          >

          Interesting. Learning to follow orders is praiseworthy for an
          existentialist?



          > > Your comments are interesting in the way that
          > > Breivik is interesting.
          >
          > I find it interesting that you would group me in with someone
          >

          I grouped you with someone who uses steroids. You shouldn't have a problem
          with that. Remember, you're all in favour of it.



          > who is attempting to change the world to the way they see it using what I
          > consider egotistical megolomanic egomaniacal etherfruitenspew. I am not
          > going to hang signs telling you what to do with your abortion (I think you
          > can take that in many ways, and, no, I don't think B. was all about abortion
          > but may have invested in some directly or indirectly). I think people should
          > follow their interests. Otherwise it is boring. If you want to make the
          > argument that it is an interest to promote non-violence, well, I disagree:
          > those consenting to violence amongst consenting consentors have consent. It
          > is like getting your ass done as a volunteer, which apparently you know all
          > about. On the other hand, promoting violence is not generally an interest,
          > as if you do you bring it on to accept it yourself -- and if you can find
          > some gawd awful reason to support the idea of continuation of the species it
          > is incongrouous. In any case, most people would rather watch it on TV.
          >
          > > Ah yeah, you like meditating while on steroids?
          >
          > I wouldn't know. I am not interested in steroids myself.
          >

          Oh yeah? Why write this?

          > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation


          I have no problem with other people enjoying them. I am not sure quite what
          > steroids would accomplish during meditation. I'm not sure how you see that
          > as clarifying or funny.
          >
          >
          Look, I'm replying to your post. What else could I be doing? You write all
          this shit, and then jack up because I reply?



          > > You've never been a parent, or were a useless one.
          >
          > And you are either so opinionated as to be blind, so blind as to be a
          > dwarf, or so sterile as to lick ice cream displays. I never did drugs. My
          > father was a toxicologist who did lab research on marijuana and alcohol, and
          > I learned all about them through his insight on his studies.Of course, I
          > don't believe it all. It didn't make me want to do them. I learned about
          > those substances and most of the other 'popular' drugs. One of my two kids
          > did recreational MJ. Her parents did not. None of her friends did. One child
          > made one choice, and the other the other. It was not a popular choice. It is
          > a small test case, but in my world view a pretty valid one: role models
          > don't mean shiit. People make their choices... unless you are a nazi and
          > give them a choice. They make choices for different reasons, and you don't
          > know them all no matter how f-ing smart-mouthed you seem to think you are.
          >
          >
          You wrote :

          >Don't give me: we need to be role models for our children. In my experience
          it doesn't do a damned thing. The individual makes a choice.

          I replied > You've never been a parent, or were a useless one.

          I don't give a fuck whether your kids smoked dope or not. That has nothing
          to do with whether you were a good parent. It is your statement that you
          don't need to be a role model for them that I'm addressing. Don't give me
          your shit about your toxicologist father and then tell me that he was
          immaterial to your "choices".

          > Cheers
          >
          > Ya, drink much? That's being a good role model. But then are most
          > alcoholics happy? and is it the lack of happiness that comes from the
          > alcohol, or vice versa? Careful with the answer mr.
          > lightningadingalingdong-rod.
          >
          > Are you one of those cause-effect nincompoops? I have a list about 500
          > miles long of things you need to explain, if so.
          >


          > So, weep weep about boxers dying. I suppose in your brilliance you want to
          > ban the sport. And that will be fine till people decide to ban things that
          > you like, like not taking criticism well and jumping to conclusions while
          > trying to insinuate pixie-like whim into your prose. it never works when fat
          > people get in a tutu.
          >
          >
          I can take criticism alright. Perhaps you don't like me replying to it?

          While I'm at it, do you want, or need, the list of pro wrestlers who died
          prematurely, all bulked up as they were?

          Perhaps your father didn't tolerate criticism? I'm saying that because in my
          experience despots of the domestic type tend to spawn the passive aggressive
          behaviour in evidence here.

          Cheers Chairs Choirs

          Herman


          > Snapping Crackled Pop
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • fictiveparrot
          ... Interesting. Sometimes I write things because the sound pleases me. The way people react often has more to do with how they interpret the words and the
          Message 4 of 24 , Aug 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            > > Heir Herman,
            >
            > My origins are Dutch, not German.
            > Either way, heir means nothing in either
            > language. In English, where you dabble,
            > you are expressing that I have
            > inherited something. Well, you're wrong, OK.

            Interesting. Sometimes I write things because the sound pleases me. The way people react often has more to do with how they interpret the words and the meanings they attach. You have taken a meaningless word and attached to it some meaning in German... Either it is not meaningless for its lack of meaning, or you have the feeling that the implication is somehow insulting -- which suggests you have an inkling in that direction as you have developed a sensitivity to the charge.

            I could care what nationality you are. There are behaviors that are stereotypical that usually have nothing to do with race or heritage. Do you worry about that?

            > > Perhaps you read into my response.
            >
            > I read your response.

            I won't get into the long deconstructionist argument that I have had here before. You fancy yourself brilliant, so suffice to say words can have meaning that an author would not have attached to them. If you don't read into my response, you are not really reading it as you can have no 'exact' idea what I said. Words are not a science and meaning, at best, is approximated. I can force you to think what I intended no more than I can make a pig drink arsenic.

            > > I am not violent. I have never taken steroids.
            > > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation.
            >
            > If I should have gleaned from that snippet of wisdom that you
            > have never taken steroids, and that you distance yourself from
            > the violence that it provokes in folks...

            It was a clarification. It is like saying "I do not believe in gawd, but other people are free to, and it doesn't make them stupid, even if I think it may be unwarranted." People have the right to take steroids in my mind, and I can take steroids in yours if you like... but in my dimly lit version of reality I have not. I don't choose to. Those who do... do. I hope they enjoy it. If not, they are delusional.

            > When is one a good boxer?

            Whenever they please themselves with their performance. As a boxer must necessarily accept the risk of what they do, and it is highly unlikely that they are unaware of the potential consequence, perhaps some have the goal of dying in the ring. I wouldn't know. I do know it can fulfill their interest in some way, be it risk for attaining money, gaining popularity, proving they are mighty... They are 'good' if they prove to themselves that they can achieve their goal. This may not include winning or dying or steroids.

            > I still doubt you have been a parent. Laissez-faire
            > with kids promotes pugilism (english for boxing). Your
            > father obviously was not a laissez-faire
            > parent, but you deny his import.

            Hahahaha. What stupid psych 101 book did YOU read. My parents -- who you could not possibly know from anything I have ever stated here -- were absolutely hands off. They were smart enough to know they couldn't force me into a mold, and allowed me to assume the shape on my own -- whether or not heir-a-parent Herman approved. They could suggest and guide and 'strenuously object', but in the end, the individual made a decision, and sometimes that bucked consequence... which generally was slight or non-existent. I follow a similar, if interpreted, view. In any case, I am about as far from being a boxer as anyone on the planet. I don't fight. I have never been in one. Through my caustic nature there have been opportunities, but there is also ducking. You can believe that has to do with cowardice. I believe it has to do with self control. Note Jujutsu. I shoot guns... at little plastic soldiers and baseball cards and pill bottles. None of the bottles contained steroids.

            > I don't give a fuck whether your kids smoked dope
            > or not. That has nothing to do with whether you were
            > a good parent. It is your statement that you
            > don't need to be a role model for them that
            > I'm addressing.

            I do think that 'need' is an assumption. I can watch you murder intellect, for example (mostly by slicing and dicing context as is convenient), but I do not have to choose to follow that same behavior. Children are young, not necessarily stupid. I have confidence that they can make a choice, and given the information they need, they can make a "better" one (I cannot define 'better'). For any 'role model' I create, I may be portraying an in-way to interpretation that I do not intend. Perhaps you think it is wrong to say: "violence is good." I would agree with you in that I cannot define 'good'. I know what I think and what I prefer and what interests me... I do not know that any of my positions rank as absolute. I do not know that a child watching a violent movie will say: "violence is good", or if they will have the presence of mind to interpret that the violence may not be something they prefer.

            Watching is not absorbing or indoctrination. One can watch something and not be it. I watched King Kong and never, in my opinion, grew hair based on that. Was Mr. Kong a good role model? He saved the girl...

            > > >> "no, no... you can't be a policeman..."
            >
            > I don't know who you are quoting. It is not me anyway.
            > Korsakoff maybe?

            no... I was paraphrasing my earlier statement as a quote. Literary license of some sort I am sure documented in the Funk of Wagonals.

            > Interesting. Learning to follow orders is praiseworthy for an
            > existentialist?

            1) I do not believe I have ever said "I am an existentialist." I may have an interest in the views and how people place themselves within their interpretation of what being existentialist is. If you are declaring that you are an existentialist by being on this list, then you are being inconsistent in a basic premise that the individual has the right to choose. z) I am sorry if you can't follow the rather simple logic there: police are respected for their choice to be involved with violence in society; boxers, in your eyes, may not be (I can't speak for your position, but it is what you seem to suggest). CODE x2) I have never given my opinion of police, I was referring to what I believe is a general perception that it is an honorable profession. GoPoBeNo) This is completely tangential to the discussion as far as I do not believe establishing my position on police is germane -- or is it German? Have I insinuated something?

            > I grouped you with someone who uses steroids. You
            > shouldn't have a problem with that. Remember, you're
            > all in favour of it.

            I think people who want to use them should. I also welcome them to the consequence of that use. I would have preferred to be grouped with Carrot Top, and perhaps you see the value in that. Your choice suggests that I admire violence. My suggestion is that if you are so swayed by boxers dying... Don't box.

            > etherfruitenspew.

            I think that needs repeating.

            > > I wouldn't know. I am not interested in steroids myself.
            >
            > Oh yeah? Why write this?
            >
            > > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation.

            "oh yeah?" sounds like a schoolyard taunt. Quaint mr. Non-boxing-oh-pitty-the-violence. "I am for..." means that I am for people following their interest in the case where that interest does not lead directly to inhibiting the interests of others. If someone were to box me to death, it would not be my interest and I would have been violated. If I were a boxer and boxed + ears = death, then I would have to accept the consequence. If I chose to have three fingers attached to the middle of my forehead so that I could raise the middle one (I am imagining now the pulley system that would need to be designed), it is my choice, regardless of how you might see it.

            Personally I find most breast implants horrific, but many women seem to see them as necessary, and many men seem to approve. All I see are the little ripples in the bag.

            > > I'm not sure how you see that
            > > as clarifying or funny.
            > >
            > Look, I'm replying to your post. What else could I be
            > doing? You write all this shit, and then jack up because
            > I reply?

            What exactly does "jack up" mean to you? I am in a card-playing mood. My point was (endorsed by the President of the US) that I was not clear on what you were saying and how it related to the conversation... at all. It seemed that you may have been trying to be funny. As an iteration, it failed for me. Not just the 'jack up' part, the part before that too.

            > > And you are either so opinionated as to be blind,
            > > so blind as to be a dwarf, or so sterile as to lick
            > > ice cream displays.

            Hahahaha. Who wrote that... Funny!

            > I don't give a fuck whether your kids smoked dope or not.
            > That has nothing to do with whether you were a good parent.

            Well, here you are splitting dia-logs again. Genius that you are, you still can't seem to follow simple logical trails -- or you choose not to (which if you would get 'choose not to' through your thick skull, this would be over). The simple logical sillio-jismo-orgasma is:

            Y) Role models matter
            ÷) Daddy is proported to be a role model
            -) Daddy does not smoke pot or approve of smoking it.
            ¨) Daddy has a daughter that smokes pot and one that does not.
            ) Role models don't matter... or if they do, they do not have absolute effect.

            > Don't give me your shit about your toxicologist
            > father and then tell me that he was
            > immaterial to your "choices".

            I can tell you that I saw his behaviors and did not agree with all of them. In those instances where I did not, I like to think that I did not imitate them. This is called choice. Had he been a boxer and my interests developed as they have, I would still not be a boxer. There are too many variables there to go into detail. I think people who box should. I think people who box and die... should. I think people who box and take steroids and die... etc.

            > > So, weep weep about boxers dying. I suppose in
            > > your brilliance you want to ban the sport. And
            > > that will be fine till people decide to ban things
            > > that you like, like not taking criticism well and
            > > jumping to conclusions while trying to insinuate
            > > pixie-like whim into your prose [EDITORS NOTE:
            > > ...and failing...]. it never works when fat
            > > people get in a tutu.

            > I can take criticism alright. Perhaps you don't like me
            > replying to it?

            I could care. Your tutu is tight. I went to art school and the one thing you learn very well ('art' is not one of them) is to listen to criticism and accept that everyone offers it -- founded or else. My criticism: I do not see your perspective as consistent. By trying to 'prove' my rebut incorrect, you appear even more stupid (not German) than before. Take that for what it is worth.

            > While I'm at it, do you want, or need, the list of
            > pro wrestlers who died prematurely, all bulked up as
            > they were?

            Yes, another exercise in futility that wastes your time so that you may not harm others with the projection of your beliefs would be welcome. Hahahaha. That was a joke. Maybe you get it. Make sure it is a long list and contains DETAILS.

            > Perhaps your father didn't tolerate criticism? I'm
            > saying that because in my experience despots of the
            > domestic type tend to spawn the passive aggressive
            > behaviour in evidence here.

            If I may: you have had a rather retarded experience. I can watch my father's behavior and do one of several things -- and quite a few more that I am not going to list (like masturbate).

            14) Imitate it.
            II.VI.a) Despise it, refute it, declaim it.
            RAW) Not react.

            Other options fall somewhere between these on the color wheel.

            Am I passive aggressive? I could care. Whatever I am doing is how I like to do it. If you feel aggressed, perhaps you are. You also may be "etherfruitenspew" or "so opinionated as to be blind, so blind as to be a dwarf, or so sterile as to lick ice cream displays."

            Personally I like toys. Big, ghastly, violent, jelly-rubber Mr. Kongs. Dick-dick is dead... did you see a need to fill a void?

            Pop Smack Cracker
          • Herman
            Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 24 , Aug 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.

              On 2 August 2011 22:23, fictiveparrot <knott12@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > > > Heir Herman,
              > >
              > > My origins are Dutch, not German.
              > > Either way, heir means nothing in either
              > > language. In English, where you dabble,
              > > you are expressing that I have
              > > inherited something. Well, you're wrong, OK.
              >
              > Interesting. Sometimes I write things because the sound pleases me. The way
              > people react often has more to do with how they interpret the words and the
              > meanings they attach. You have taken a meaningless word and attached to it
              > some meaning in German... Either it is not meaningless for its lack of
              > meaning, or you have the feeling that the implication is somehow insulting
              > -- which suggests you have an inkling in that direction as you have
              > developed a sensitivity to the charge.
              >
              > I could care what nationality you are. There are behaviors that are
              > stereotypical that usually have nothing to do with race or heritage. Do you
              > worry about that?
              >
              > > > Perhaps you read into my response.
              > >
              > > I read your response.
              >
              > I won't get into the long deconstructionist argument that I have had here
              > before. You fancy yourself brilliant, so suffice to say words can have
              > meaning that an author would not have attached to them. If you don't read
              > into my response, you are not really reading it as you can have no 'exact'
              > idea what I said. Words are not a science and meaning, at best, is
              > approximated. I can force you to think what I intended no more than I can
              > make a pig drink arsenic.
              >
              > > > I am not violent. I have never taken steroids.
              > > > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation.
              > >
              > > If I should have gleaned from that snippet of wisdom that you
              > > have never taken steroids, and that you distance yourself from
              > > the violence that it provokes in folks...
              >
              > It was a clarification. It is like saying "I do not believe in gawd, but
              > other people are free to, and it doesn't make them stupid, even if I think
              > it may be unwarranted." People have the right to take steroids in my mind,
              > and I can take steroids in yours if you like... but in my dimly lit version
              > of reality I have not. I don't choose to. Those who do... do. I hope they
              > enjoy it. If not, they are delusional.
              >
              > > When is one a good boxer?
              >
              > Whenever they please themselves with their performance. As a boxer must
              > necessarily accept the risk of what they do, and it is highly unlikely that
              > they are unaware of the potential consequence, perhaps some have the goal of
              > dying in the ring. I wouldn't know. I do know it can fulfill their interest
              > in some way, be it risk for attaining money, gaining popularity, proving
              > they are mighty... They are 'good' if they prove to themselves that they can
              > achieve their goal. This may not include winning or dying or steroids.
              >
              > > I still doubt you have been a parent. Laissez-faire
              > > with kids promotes pugilism (english for boxing). Your
              > > father obviously was not a laissez-faire
              > > parent, but you deny his import.
              >
              > Hahahaha. What stupid psych 101 book did YOU read. My parents -- who you
              > could not possibly know from anything I have ever stated here -- were
              > absolutely hands off. They were smart enough to know they couldn't force me
              > into a mold, and allowed me to assume the shape on my own -- whether or not
              > heir-a-parent Herman approved. They could suggest and guide and 'strenuously
              > object', but in the end, the individual made a decision, and sometimes that
              > bucked consequence... which generally was slight or non-existent. I follow a
              > similar, if interpreted, view. In any case, I am about as far from being a
              > boxer as anyone on the planet. I don't fight. I have never been in one.
              > Through my caustic nature there have been opportunities, but there is also
              > ducking. You can believe that has to do with cowardice. I believe it has to
              > do with self control. Note Jujutsu. I shoot guns... at little plastic
              > soldiers and baseball cards and pill bottles. None of the bottles contained
              > steroids.
              >
              > > I don't give a fuck whether your kids smoked dope
              > > or not. That has nothing to do with whether you were
              > > a good parent. It is your statement that you
              > > don't need to be a role model for them that
              > > I'm addressing.
              >
              > I do think that 'need' is an assumption. I can watch you murder intellect,
              > for example (mostly by slicing and dicing context as is convenient), but I
              > do not have to choose to follow that same behavior. Children are young, not
              > necessarily stupid. I have confidence that they can make a choice, and given
              > the information they need, they can make a "better" one (I cannot define
              > 'better'). For any 'role model' I create, I may be portraying an in-way to
              > interpretation that I do not intend. Perhaps you think it is wrong to say:
              > "violence is good." I would agree with you in that I cannot define 'good'. I
              > know what I think and what I prefer and what interests me... I do not know
              > that any of my positions rank as absolute. I do not know that a child
              > watching a violent movie will say: "violence is good", or if they will have
              > the presence of mind to interpret that the violence may not be something
              > they prefer.
              >
              > Watching is not absorbing or indoctrination. One can watch something and
              > not be it. I watched King Kong and never, in my opinion, grew hair based on
              > that. Was Mr. Kong a good role model? He saved the girl...
              >
              > > > >> "no, no... you can't be a policeman..."
              > >
              > > I don't know who you are quoting. It is not me anyway.
              > > Korsakoff maybe?
              >
              > no... I was paraphrasing my earlier statement as a quote. Literary license
              > of some sort I am sure documented in the Funk of Wagonals.
              >
              > > Interesting. Learning to follow orders is praiseworthy for an
              > > existentialist?
              >
              > 1) I do not believe I have ever said "I am an existentialist." I may have
              > an interest in the views and how people place themselves within their
              > interpretation of what being existentialist is. If you are declaring that
              > you are an existentialist by being on this list, then you are being
              > inconsistent in a basic premise that the individual has the right to choose.
              > z) I am sorry if you can't follow the rather simple logic there: police are
              > respected for their choice to be involved with violence in society; boxers,
              > in your eyes, may not be (I can't speak for your position, but it is what
              > you seem to suggest). CODE x2) I have never given my opinion of police, I
              > was referring to what I believe is a general perception that it is an
              > honorable profession. GoPoBeNo) This is completely tangential to the
              > discussion as far as I do not believe establishing my position on police is
              > germane -- or is it German? Have I insinuated something?
              >
              > > I grouped you with someone who uses steroids. You
              > > shouldn't have a problem with that. Remember, you're
              > > all in favour of it.
              >
              > I think people who want to use them should. I also welcome them to the
              > consequence of that use. I would have preferred to be grouped with Carrot
              > Top, and perhaps you see the value in that. Your choice suggests that I
              > admire violence. My suggestion is that if you are so swayed by boxers
              > dying... Don't box.
              >
              > > etherfruitenspew.
              >
              > I think that needs repeating.
              >
              > > > I wouldn't know. I am not interested in steroids myself.
              > >
              > > Oh yeah? Why write this?
              > >
              > > > I am for steroids. I am for body augmentation.
              >
              > "oh yeah?" sounds like a schoolyard taunt. Quaint mr.
              > Non-boxing-oh-pitty-the-violence. "I am for..." means that I am for people
              > following their interest in the case where that interest does not lead
              > directly to inhibiting the interests of others. If someone were to box me to
              > death, it would not be my interest and I would have been violated. If I were
              > a boxer and boxed + ears = death, then I would have to accept the
              > consequence. If I chose to have three fingers attached to the middle of my
              > forehead so that I could raise the middle one (I am imagining now the pulley
              > system that would need to be designed), it is my choice, regardless of how
              > you might see it.
              >
              > Personally I find most breast implants horrific, but many women seem to see
              > them as necessary, and many men seem to approve. All I see are the little
              > ripples in the bag.
              >
              > > > I'm not sure how you see that
              > > > as clarifying or funny.
              > > >
              > > Look, I'm replying to your post. What else could I be
              > > doing? You write all this shit, and then jack up because
              > > I reply?
              >
              > What exactly does "jack up" mean to you? I am in a card-playing mood. My
              > point was (endorsed by the President of the US) that I was not clear on what
              > you were saying and how it related to the conversation... at all. It seemed
              > that you may have been trying to be funny. As an iteration, it failed for
              > me. Not just the 'jack up' part, the part before that too.
              >
              > > > And you are either so opinionated as to be blind,
              > > > so blind as to be a dwarf, or so sterile as to lick
              > > > ice cream displays.
              >
              > Hahahaha. Who wrote that... Funny!
              >
              > > I don't give a fuck whether your kids smoked dope or not.
              > > That has nothing to do with whether you were a good parent.
              >
              > Well, here you are splitting dia-logs again. Genius that you are, you still
              > can't seem to follow simple logical trails -- or you choose not to (which if
              > you would get 'choose not to' through your thick skull, this would be over).
              > The simple logical sillio-jismo-orgasma is:
              >
              > Y) Role models matter
              > �) Daddy is proported to be a role model
              > -) Daddy does not smoke pot or approve of smoking it.
              > �) Daddy has a daughter that smokes pot and one that does not.
              > ) Role models don't matter... or if they do, they do not have
              > absolute effect.
              >
              > > Don't give me your shit about your toxicologist
              > > father and then tell me that he was
              > > immaterial to your "choices".
              >
              > I can tell you that I saw his behaviors and did not agree with all of them.
              > In those instances where I did not, I like to think that I did not imitate
              > them. This is called choice. Had he been a boxer and my interests developed
              > as they have, I would still not be a boxer. There are too many variables
              > there to go into detail. I think people who box should. I think people who
              > box and die... should. I think people who box and take steroids and die...
              > etc.
              >
              > > > So, weep weep about boxers dying. I suppose in
              > > > your brilliance you want to ban the sport. And
              > > > that will be fine till people decide to ban things
              > > > that you like, like not taking criticism well and
              > > > jumping to conclusions while trying to insinuate
              > > > pixie-like whim into your prose [EDITORS NOTE:
              > > > ...and failing...]. it never works when fat
              > > > people get in a tutu.
              >
              > > I can take criticism alright. Perhaps you don't like me
              > > replying to it?
              >
              > I could care. Your tutu is tight. I went to art school and the one thing
              > you learn very well ('art' is not one of them) is to listen to criticism and
              > accept that everyone offers it -- founded or else. My criticism: I do not
              > see your perspective as consistent. By trying to 'prove' my rebut incorrect,
              > you appear even more stupid (not German) than before. Take that for what it
              > is worth.
              >
              > > While I'm at it, do you want, or need, the list of
              > > pro wrestlers who died prematurely, all bulked up as
              > > they were?
              >
              > Yes, another exercise in futility that wastes your time so that you may not
              > harm others with the projection of your beliefs would be welcome. Hahahaha.
              > That was a joke. Maybe you get it. Make sure it is a long list and contains
              > DETAILS.
              >
              > > Perhaps your father didn't tolerate criticism? I'm
              > > saying that because in my experience despots of the
              > > domestic type tend to spawn the passive aggressive
              > > behaviour in evidence here.
              >
              > If I may: you have had a rather retarded experience. I can watch my
              > father's behavior and do one of several things -- and quite a few more that
              > I am not going to list (like masturbate).
              >
              > 14) Imitate it.
              > II.VI.a) Despise it, refute it, declaim it.
              > RAW) Not react.
              >
              > Other options fall somewhere between these on the color wheel.
              >
              > Am I passive aggressive? I could care. Whatever I am doing is how I like to
              > do it. If you feel aggressed, perhaps you are. You also may be
              > "etherfruitenspew" or "so opinionated as to be blind, so blind as to be a
              > dwarf, or so sterile as to lick ice cream displays."
              >
              > Personally I like toys. Big, ghastly, violent, jelly-rubber Mr. Kongs.
              > Dick-dick is dead... did you see a need to fill a void?
              >
              > Pop Smack Cracker
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • fictiveparrot
              ... So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil? I have heard of logical fallacy , but you are free,
              Message 6 of 24 , Aug 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.

                So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil?

                I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.

                Cracker Pops Smack
              • Jim
                Knott, I found aspect of your dialog with Herman interesting and offer the following thoughts. First I found it interesting to listen to a discussion of
                Message 7 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Knott,

                  I found aspect of your dialog with Herman interesting and offer the following thoughts.

                  First I found it interesting to listen to a discussion of ethical matters by two individuals who disbelieve in objective values. Both of you want to avoid using such value-laden terms as `good', `bad, `ought', `should'. However you both do seem to have strong views as to what sorts of behaviour should be allowed or dis-allowed.

                  I think your particular scepticisms are slightly different. You, I think, are an epistemological sceptic, in that you say you do not know if there are any objective values, whereas Herman is a metaphysical sceptic, in that he claims to know there aren't any objective values. He is dogmatic whereas you are tentative in your assertions.

                  My understanding of the areas of dispute between you – leaving aside the ad hominem comments – is that Herman claims that both boxing and steroid use (abuse) should be discouraged (or even outlawed) because they cause harm (either to the boxers themselves or the recipients of violence at the hands of the person full of steroids). Your view is that individuals should not be subject to moralising or paternalistic laws and should be free to box, watch boxing or take steroids.

                  I think your position is that boxing or steroid use may result in people getting hurt, but so what? If that is their choice so be it. Individuals should be allowed to pursue their interests without interference from others, particularly from moralising do-gooders.

                  To a large extent I sympathize with your view here. I am happy for boxing to be allowed, although in the same way as I would not like it if my daughter chose prostitution as a career, I would not be keen for my son to choose boxing as a career choice. However, at the end of the day, they have their own lives to lead, and it is not for me to try to stop them doing what they want to do.

                  On the other hand if it is proved that taking steroids makes people much more aggressive, there is a conflict of interests between the steroid-user who wants to take the pills and the long-suffering wife or children or the man on the next bar stool who may get beaten up when their husband/father /fellow drinker takes the pills.

                  It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking and driving. You may say that people should be allowed to drink and drive if they want, but surely we need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent pedestrians and other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour paternalistic laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I think Herman does have a case here.

                  I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse others as adults.

                  Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone.

                  Jim




                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                  >
                  > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                  >
                  > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                  >
                  > Cracker Pops Smack
                  >
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone. I haven t hit anyone since grade school, and that
                  Message 8 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone."

                    I haven't hit anyone since grade school, and that was mostly pulled punches. However, one of my most fond memories of my Dad, who passed away this Winter, is of him knocking out a cop on the Northern State Parkway in New York. One slug. Down. Cop was a real tool, and my Dad suffered no ill consequences from the affair. Of course, in today's climate in Amerika, he would have suffered a different end for such an act against the State. SWAT teams and helicopters.

                    Wil









                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                    To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 7:05 am
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Pro Leg Loss and the Tics of Marks





                    Knott,

                    I found aspect of your dialog with Herman interesting and offer the following thoughts.

                    First I found it interesting to listen to a discussion of ethical matters by two individuals who disbelieve in objective values. Both of you want to avoid using such value-laden terms as `good', `bad, `ought', `should'. However you both do seem to have strong views as to what sorts of behaviour should be allowed or dis-allowed.

                    I think your particular scepticisms are slightly different. You, I think, are an epistemological sceptic, in that you say you do not know if there are any objective values, whereas Herman is a metaphysical sceptic, in that he claims to know there aren't any objective values. He is dogmatic whereas you are tentative in your assertions.

                    My understanding of the areas of dispute between you – leaving aside the ad hominem comments – is that Herman claims that both boxing and steroid use (abuse) should be discouraged (or even outlawed) because they cause harm (either to the boxers themselves or the recipients of violence at the hands of the person full of steroids). Your view is that individuals should not be subject to moralising or paternalistic laws and should be free to box, watch boxing or take steroids.

                    I think your position is that boxing or steroid use may result in people getting hurt, but so what? If that is their choice so be it. Individuals should be allowed to pursue their interests without interference from others, particularly from moralising do-gooders.

                    To a large extent I sympathize with your view here. I am happy for boxing to be allowed, although in the same way as I would not like it if my daughter chose prostitution as a career, I would not be keen for my son to choose boxing as a career choice. However, at the end of the day, they have their own lives to lead, and it is not for me to try to stop them doing what they want to do.

                    On the other hand if it is proved that taking steroids makes people much more aggressive, there is a conflict of interests between the steroid-user who wants to take the pills and the long-suffering wife or children or the man on the next bar stool who may get beaten up when their husband/father /fellow drinker takes the pills.

                    It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking and driving. You may say that people should be allowed to drink and drive if they want, but surely we need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent pedestrians and other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour paternalistic laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I think Herman does have a case here.

                    I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse others as adults.

                    Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone.

                    Jim

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                    >
                    > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                    >
                    > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                    >
                    > Cracker Pops Smack
                    >









                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • fictiveparrot
                    ... I don t know that it can be proved. I don t know that anything can be proved. The victim of an alcohol related crime has likely never stood up and
                    Message 9 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > On the other hand if it is proved that taking
                      > steroids makes people much more aggressive,
                      > there is a conflict of interests between the
                      > steroid-user ... and the long-suffering wife ...
                      >
                      > It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking
                      > and driving. You may say that people should be
                      > allowed to drink and drive if they want...

                      I don't know that it can be proved. I don't know that anything can be proved.

                      The victim of an alcohol related crime has likely never stood up and requested to be run over by a car. If you marry a boxer, do you really expect they will turn it off when they hang their shorts up in the gym? Not saying it is not possible...

                      if you marry a woman who had a propensity to sleep around before meeting you, it is likely not the best idea to assume that will change. You have to resign to live with it and expect it whether or not it happens -- and whether or not it matters to you.

                      The idea of wanting to 'stop' boxing as an atrocity is just stupid. The idea of wanting to marry a woman who plugs her hole voraciously regardless of the cork is stupid if fidelity matters and you are the jealous type.

                      I trust people to make intelligent decisions... well, except Herman.

                      A. Void Logic

                      but surely we need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent pedestrians and other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour paternalistic laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I think Herman does have a case here.
                      >
                      > I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse others as adults.
                      >
                      > Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone.
                      >
                      > Jim
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                      > >
                      > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                      > >
                      > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                      > >
                      > > Cracker Pops Smack
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • Herman
                      Hi Wil, Thanks for sharing your memories. They stroke a chord. I try to avoid the thought of my Mum and/or Dad passing away, but I know it is on the cards, and
                      Message 10 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Wil,

                        Thanks for sharing your memories. They stroke a chord.

                        I try to avoid the thought of my Mum and/or Dad passing away, but I know it
                        is on the cards, and sooner rather than later. Neil Young's "Helpless" comes
                        to mind. Time makes fools of us all.

                        Cheers

                        Herman


                        On 3 August 2011 22:19, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

                        > **
                        >
                        >
                        > "Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I
                        > never saw my father hit anyone."
                        >
                        > I haven't hit anyone since grade school, and that was mostly pulled
                        > punches. However, one of my most fond memories of my Dad, who passed away
                        > this Winter, is of him knocking out a cop on the Northern State Parkway in
                        > New York. One slug. Down. Cop was a real tool, and my Dad suffered no ill
                        > consequences from the affair. Of course, in today's climate in Amerika, he
                        > would have suffered a different end for such an act against the State. SWAT
                        > teams and helicopters.
                        >
                        > Wil
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 7:05 am
                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Pro Leg Loss and the Tics of Marks
                        >
                        > Knott,
                        >
                        > I found aspect of your dialog with Herman interesting and offer the
                        > following thoughts.
                        >
                        > First I found it interesting to listen to a discussion of ethical matters
                        > by two individuals who disbelieve in objective values. Both of you want to
                        > avoid using such value-laden terms as `good', `bad, `ought', `should'.
                        > However you both do seem to have strong views as to what sorts of behaviour
                        > should be allowed or dis-allowed.
                        >
                        > I think your particular scepticisms are slightly different. You, I think,
                        > are an epistemological sceptic, in that you say you do not know if there are
                        > any objective values, whereas Herman is a metaphysical sceptic, in that he
                        > claims to know there aren't any objective values. He is dogmatic whereas you
                        > are tentative in your assertions.
                        >
                        > My understanding of the areas of dispute between you � leaving aside the ad
                        > hominem comments � is that Herman claims that both boxing and steroid use
                        > (abuse) should be discouraged (or even outlawed) because they cause harm
                        > (either to the boxers themselves or the recipients of violence at the hands
                        > of the person full of steroids). Your view is that individuals should not be
                        > subject to moralising or paternalistic laws and should be free to box, watch
                        > boxing or take steroids.
                        >
                        > I think your position is that boxing or steroid use may result in people
                        > getting hurt, but so what? If that is their choice so be it. Individuals
                        > should be allowed to pursue their interests without interference from
                        > others, particularly from moralising do-gooders.
                        >
                        > To a large extent I sympathize with your view here. I am happy for boxing
                        > to be allowed, although in the same way as I would not like it if my
                        > daughter chose prostitution as a career, I would not be keen for my son to
                        > choose boxing as a career choice. However, at the end of the day, they have
                        > their own lives to lead, and it is not for me to try to stop them doing what
                        > they want to do.
                        >
                        > On the other hand if it is proved that taking steroids makes people much
                        > more aggressive, there is a conflict of interests between the steroid-user
                        > who wants to take the pills and the long-suffering wife or children or the
                        > man on the next bar stool who may get beaten up when their husband/father
                        > /fellow drinker takes the pills.
                        >
                        > It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking and driving. You may say
                        > that people should be allowed to drink and drive if they want, but surely we
                        > need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent pedestrians and
                        > other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour paternalistic
                        > laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I think Herman
                        > does have a case here.
                        >
                        > I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role
                        > models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their
                        > children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics
                        > show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent
                        > adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse
                        > others as adults.
                        >
                        > Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I
                        > never saw my father hit anyone.
                        >
                        > Jim
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                        > >
                        > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics
                        > somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                        > >
                        > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue
                        > your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                        > >
                        > > Cracker Pops Smack
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Herman
                        You re tilting at straw men ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Message 11 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          You're tilting at straw men

                          On 3 August 2011 23:58, fictiveparrot <knott12@...> wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > > On the other hand if it is proved that taking
                          > > steroids makes people much more aggressive,
                          > > there is a conflict of interests between the
                          > > steroid-user ... and the long-suffering wife ...
                          > >
                          > > It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking
                          > > and driving. You may say that people should be
                          > > allowed to drink and drive if they want...
                          >
                          > I don't know that it can be proved. I don't know that anything can be
                          > proved.
                          >
                          > The victim of an alcohol related crime has likely never stood up and
                          > requested to be run over by a car. If you marry a boxer, do you really
                          > expect they will turn it off when they hang their shorts up in the gym? Not
                          > saying it is not possible...
                          >
                          > if you marry a woman who had a propensity to sleep around before meeting
                          > you, it is likely not the best idea to assume that will change. You have to
                          > resign to live with it and expect it whether or not it happens -- and
                          > whether or not it matters to you.
                          >
                          > The idea of wanting to 'stop' boxing as an atrocity is just stupid. The
                          > idea of wanting to marry a woman who plugs her hole voraciously regardless
                          > of the cork is stupid if fidelity matters and you are the jealous type.
                          >
                          > I trust people to make intelligent decisions... well, except Herman.
                          >
                          > A. Void Logic
                          >
                          > but surely we need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent
                          > pedestrians and other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour
                          > paternalistic laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I
                          > think Herman does have a case here.
                          > >
                          > > I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role
                          > models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their
                          > children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics
                          > show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent
                          > adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse
                          > others as adults.
                          > >
                          > > Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that
                          > I never saw my father hit anyone.
                          > >
                          > > Jim
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                          > > >
                          > > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics
                          > somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                          > > >
                          > > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue
                          > your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                          > > >
                          > > > Cracker Pops Smack
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • William
                          ... My father never hit anybody, he preferred to knee them in the balls. I saw him do it and it was very effective. He took out a guy twenty years younger than
                          Message 12 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Knott,
                            >
                            > I found aspect of your dialog with Herman interesting and offer the following thoughts.
                            >
                            > First I found it interesting to listen to a discussion of ethical matters by two individuals who disbelieve in objective values. Both of you want to avoid using such value-laden terms as `good', `bad, `ought', `should'. However you both do seem to have strong views as to what sorts of behaviour should be allowed or dis-allowed.
                            >
                            > I think your particular scepticisms are slightly different. You, I think, are an epistemological sceptic, in that you say you do not know if there are any objective values, whereas Herman is a metaphysical sceptic, in that he claims to know there aren't any objective values. He is dogmatic whereas you are tentative in your assertions.
                            >
                            > My understanding of the areas of dispute between you – leaving aside the ad hominem comments – is that Herman claims that both boxing and steroid use (abuse) should be discouraged (or even outlawed) because they cause harm (either to the boxers themselves or the recipients of violence at the hands of the person full of steroids). Your view is that individuals should not be subject to moralising or paternalistic laws and should be free to box, watch boxing or take steroids.
                            >
                            > I think your position is that boxing or steroid use may result in people getting hurt, but so what? If that is their choice so be it. Individuals should be allowed to pursue their interests without interference from others, particularly from moralising do-gooders.
                            >
                            > To a large extent I sympathize with your view here. I am happy for boxing to be allowed, although in the same way as I would not like it if my daughter chose prostitution as a career, I would not be keen for my son to choose boxing as a career choice. However, at the end of the day, they have their own lives to lead, and it is not for me to try to stop them doing what they want to do.
                            >
                            > On the other hand if it is proved that taking steroids makes people much more aggressive, there is a conflict of interests between the steroid-user who wants to take the pills and the long-suffering wife or children or the man on the next bar stool who may get beaten up when their husband/father /fellow drinker takes the pills.
                            >
                            > It seems to me it is a similar case to drinking and driving. You may say that people should be allowed to drink and drive if they want, but surely we need a paternalist law in this case to protect innocent pedestrians and other road users from the drunken menace. I certainly favour paternalistic laws to protect innocent people from dangerous idiots, so I think Herman does have a case here.
                            >
                            > I also think Herman had a reasonable point concerning parents as role models. I think parents should attempt to set a good example to their children, as to some extent children copy parents' behaviour. Statistics show that sons of violent fathers are more likely to develop into violent adults. Similarly, unfortunately, abused children often grow up to abuse others as adults.
                            >
                            > Like you, I have never hit anyone, but it is perhaps not irrelevant that I never saw my father hit anyone.
                            >
                            > Jim
                            > Jim, thoughtful,what you say. On the dwi example, would you agree to penalities that are not political assumptions of punishment? OWI has been a favorite whipping boy ,here, in a state that has deep anti alcohol[methodist} roots. It is our version of mormanism and is just as vingeful and dogmatic as anything that goes on in Salt Lake City. You are obviously a very good boy and have probably not affronted anyone. I have two one punch knock outs. They were not sucker punches and in one we actually had gloves on. I don`t think you understand many of the real factors operating in matters of civil rights and liberties. You just go with the letter of law because you think you will not ,ever pay any price. "Let the bad guys, the guilty, do the heavy lifting". Now that is a judgmental attitude ,the thing Bookdoc detests. I doubt you even know why you piss us off. Even bleek Herman has a decent sense of liberty. Low country germans love their laws.
                            My father never hit anybody, he preferred to knee them in the balls. I saw him do it and it was very effective. He took out a guy twenty years younger than him and did not break a swet. Moralise on that Jim. There is no conscious reflection you just waste the sucker, happy you are not the one.
                            Do you quick spin as a self defense method?Have you been robbed? Beaten up, publically berated, put in the stocks, eaten unwanted,rotten vegatables? These previous experiences shade your views of issues of personal freedom.
                            I think you are light on normal experience. You might think yourself lucky and I could go with that but that dont mean you are holding up your end of the log. It`s great to be a pirate! Bill
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                            > >
                            > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                            > >
                            > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                            > >
                            > > Cracker Pops Smack
                            > >
                            >
                          • Herman
                            Hi Wil, ... You do not understand, I think, how the US is pissing the rest of the world of. Putin has you collectively, with your individualistic and
                            Message 13 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Wil,

                              On 4 August 2011 03:29, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:

                              > **
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > > Jim
                              > > Jim, thoughtful,what you say. On the dwi example, would you agree to
                              > penalities that are not political assumptions of punishment? OWI has been a
                              > favorite whipping boy ,here, in a state that has deep anti
                              > alcohol[methodist} roots. It is our version of mormanism and is just as
                              > vingeful and dogmatic as anything that goes on in Salt Lake City. You are
                              > obviously a very good boy and have probably not affronted anyone. I have two
                              > one punch knock outs. They were not sucker punches and in one we actually
                              > had gloves on. I don`t think you understand many of the real factors
                              > operating in matters of civil rights and liberties. You just go with the
                              > letter of law because you think you will not ,ever pay any price. "Let the
                              > bad guys, the guilty, do the heavy lifting". Now that is a judgmental
                              > attitude ,the thing Bookdoc detests. I doubt you even know why you piss us
                              > off. Even bleek Herman has a decent sense of liberty. Low country germans
                              > love their laws.
                              > My father never hit anybody, he preferred to knee them in the balls. I saw
                              > him do it and it was very effective. He took out a guy twenty years younger
                              > than him and did not break a swet. Moralise on that Jim. There is no
                              > conscious reflection you just waste the sucker, happy you are not the one.
                              > Do you quick spin as a self defense method?Have you been robbed? Beaten up,
                              > publically berated, put in the stocks, eaten unwanted,rotten vegatables?
                              > These previous experiences shade your views of issues of personal freedom.
                              > I think you are light on normal experience. You might think yourself lucky
                              > and I could go with that but that dont mean you are holding up your end of
                              > the log. It`s great to be a pirate! Bill
                              >
                              >
                              You do not understand, I think, how the US is pissing the rest of the world
                              of. Putin has you collectively, with your individualistic and freedreaming
                              ideology, as parasites on the world. He is right. Nothing you (collectively)
                              do or say is sustainable. Each and every one of you free peoples is in hock
                              to the rest of the world up to your eyeballs. Do you understand that debt
                              and freedom are irreconcilable? No, not at all, you're going to print
                              another 3 trillion dollars. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum. And a wheelbarrow
                              for the printed loot.

                              Cheers


                              Herman



                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                              > > >
                              > > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics
                              > somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                              > > >
                              > > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to pursue
                              > your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                              > > >
                              > > > Cracker Pops Smack
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Herman
                              Sorry, that was meant to be Bill, not Wil. Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Message 14 of 24 , Aug 3, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Sorry, that was meant to be Bill, not Wil.

                                Cheers

                                Herman

                                On 4 August 2011 10:00, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

                                > Hi Wil,
                                >
                                > On 4 August 2011 03:29, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >> **
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> >
                                >> > Jim
                                >> > Jim, thoughtful,what you say. On the dwi example, would you agree to
                                >> penalities that are not political assumptions of punishment? OWI has been a
                                >> favorite whipping boy ,here, in a state that has deep anti
                                >> alcohol[methodist} roots. It is our version of mormanism and is just as
                                >> vingeful and dogmatic as anything that goes on in Salt Lake City. You are
                                >> obviously a very good boy and have probably not affronted anyone. I have two
                                >> one punch knock outs. They were not sucker punches and in one we actually
                                >> had gloves on. I don`t think you understand many of the real factors
                                >> operating in matters of civil rights and liberties. You just go with the
                                >> letter of law because you think you will not ,ever pay any price. "Let the
                                >> bad guys, the guilty, do the heavy lifting". Now that is a judgmental
                                >> attitude ,the thing Bookdoc detests. I doubt you even know why you piss us
                                >> off. Even bleek Herman has a decent sense of liberty. Low country germans
                                >> love their laws.
                                >> My father never hit anybody, he preferred to knee them in the balls. I saw
                                >> him do it and it was very effective. He took out a guy twenty years younger
                                >> than him and did not break a swet. Moralise on that Jim. There is no
                                >> conscious reflection you just waste the sucker, happy you are not the one.
                                >> Do you quick spin as a self defense method?Have you been robbed? Beaten
                                >> up, publically berated, put in the stocks, eaten unwanted,rotten vegatables?
                                >> These previous experiences shade your views of issues of personal freedom.
                                >> I think you are light on normal experience. You might think yourself lucky
                                >> and I could go with that but that dont mean you are holding up your end of
                                >> the log. It`s great to be a pirate! Bill
                                >>
                                >>
                                > You do not understand, I think, how the US is pissing the rest of the world
                                > of. Putin has you collectively, with your individualistic and freedreaming
                                > ideology, as parasites on the world. He is right. Nothing you (collectively)
                                > do or say is sustainable. Each and every one of you free peoples is in hock
                                > to the rest of the world up to your eyeballs. Do you understand that debt
                                > and freedom are irreconcilable? No, not at all, you're going to print
                                > another 3 trillion dollars. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum. And a wheelbarrow
                                > for the printed loot.
                                >
                                > Cheers
                                >
                                >
                                > Herman
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> >
                                >> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
                                >> > >
                                >> > > > Yes, the diagnosis is confirmed.
                                >> > >
                                >> > > So, your brilliant diagnosis of passive-aggressive characteristics
                                >> somehow proves that boxing is evil?
                                >> > >
                                >> > > I have heard of 'logical fallacy', but you are free, I guess, to
                                >> pursue your interest in 'logical stupidity'. It hurts no one.
                                >> > >
                                >> > > Cracker Pops Smack
                                >> > >
                                >> >
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.