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

Re: [existlist] Re: Pro Leg Loss and the Tics of Marks

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.