SeVeR

Oh whoopsie, that was my character, and yes i am serious.

Ahah! but... how big are your pants and how small is the truth?

I wouldn't call jumping out of a plane the survivalist morality. The survivalist morality is waiting for some morally-mindscrewed believer to sacrifice himself for the good of the rest of the people. The Texan has it but the Texan has now taken on the implications of killing someone causing other people to fear his threat to their own survival: This could potentially result in the Texan being locked up or executed for his "crimes". So you're right it's a tricky situation but the whole idea of survival is you don't kill yourself until you are killed, nobodies life matters more than your own. Exactly! So you do understand. There is a universal truth and any one of us may believe in it. However there is no way to tell what it is! What it "probably" is may be the majority opinion but it possibly isn't. Their is no clearly wrong situation, only your opinion of wrong. I don't have to prove he hasn't found the universal truth because i could put forward an equally opposite possible truth and claim that to be the universal truth. The truth cannot be both and so we are left in uncertainty. So just to be clear: There is a truth, there must be a truth, but we will never ever know what it is. Giving to charity makes the giver and the receiver happy. The receiver is more likely to help the giver in return when he can or if the giver is anonymous to the receiver he is busy earning browny points with whatever higher power he believes in. People also just want to feel good about themselves, they want to believe they are perfect in their morals and perfect in themselves. Survival depends on happiness and happiness partly depends on achievements that are small steps in our quest for perfection, whatever we believe that to be. I could now talk about the psychological benefits for believers in Jesus being a man-god but that'd be deviating too much from the discussion. Now you're getting somewhere, don't you see, killing is not a universal wrong and is not a universal moral. The only reason we lock up people who kill is because they threaten our survival. -EDIT- In fact self-defense is the perfect example because it is the act of killing someone to protect your survival. This is where survival outweighs the moral saying it's wrong to murder someone. There is no wrong in this situation but now you've stated he is not dangerous it means you could benefit from releasing him. This could aid your survival because you've made a new friend and even you agree about safety in numbers. He would owe you his life, thats a positive in my opinion. You have to weigh this up about how sure you are of his sanity because you couldn't be completely sure even with a psychiatrists analysis. There is no wrong in not letting him out, his situation has not changed, neither has yours. It wasn't that, i have people telling me i'm going to !@#$%^&* all the time and it doesn't bother me. I think my last post should outline it.

Oh please, get of your high horse for just a second. It turned into an argument because you made hostile demeaning !@#$%^&*umptions about my personal life, that enough for you? I can see why your experience of internet discussions always ends in argument if you insult everyone you disagree with. How about i assume that you're a bible bashing southern inbred re!@#$%^&*, would you like it? I don't think so because its presumptious and it's nasty; it's also probably wrong. I'll get onto the rest of your post later. How about i didn't take the test a gajillion times and i'm not covered in piercings? You're right about one thing, i'm not a Satanist, i agree with their ideals and philosophies but not the magical/mystical part of it, you see i've actually read the Satanic Bible and know what i'm talking about.

That is not certain to be right or wrong because i disagree with you. As do many others. If the majority of people on Earth agreed with me then there'd be people saying what i say is the moral absolute. You are only in the majority or at least what you believe to be the majority. Most people only agree with you on this because they like to ally themselves with something that makes them feel good and meaningful when in fact they'll never follow your so-called moral absolute. Would you want someone to help you if you were starving in the street? I guess you would, maybe you even give money to charities that help people in this situation. Now put yourself in a poor place in Africa and see whether you feel like giving to the poor. Primarily you would fight to survive because this is the underlying need. If a situation arises where doing unto others threatens your survival you would not take that risk, therefore it is not a moral absolute because it's based on your situation and how easy it is for you to.... SURVIVE! Aileron started a debate and it turned into an argument because he began insulting people. Maybe he should follow some of the rules he chooses to enforce here.

You have missed my point altogether. Let me set you straight on this: There is a truth in all situations, we just won't ever know with certainty what it is. I'm not saying there is no truth and i find your tone and incorrect !@#$%^&*umptions quite insulting when you haven't even read what i've said. I could quote myself from a previous post in this very topic if you really want me to show you. There is no way in which you can presume you are absolutely right. I'll admit that it's a nice illusion to think you are right. Uncertainty as a truth is a contradiction but uncertainty as uncertain is not. Therefore we must say that everything is uncertain including the truth about uncertainty and because the possibility of everything being uncertain is uncertain this statement that encomp!@#$%^&*es every possible known truth makes knowing truth impossible. We will forever be oblivious to truth and any absolutes of right and wrong. Tell me where i am wrong here, if you can. Can you read this back to yourself because it sounds really stupid to me. We do use our intellect to survive, but you seem to think instinct is thoughtless and impulsive. To survive against your lion i would have to act quickly rather than sit around drawing up force and momentum vectors that calculate how much damage the lion could do to me before i can reach safety. I would use my acquired intellect to find the nearest building or climb a tree if there were no buildings about but i would do this instinctually, to survive. If you don't like the word instinct just think of it as survival. Survival is our underlying need above all others and every so-called moral can be derived from it. Not really, when you've acquired the proper knowledge your instinct becomes to conserve and time your attacks to perfection. The reason you learn what you do is to survive better. Once again you seem to view instinct as thoughtless impulse. Here's an example for you: There is a major natural disaster, everyone around me is dead. I need to survive so i look for food and water, but where? Maybe there are some deserted shops or restaurants, i'll go look. This is neither impulsive or thoughtless but its my survival instinct. Another example: I find another person in this disaster stricken city and rather than choosing to kill them, risking my own life, i believe in safety in numbers and befriend them. This is my survival instinct, its neither thoughtless or impulsive. Instincts often are impulsive if the situation requires it but instincts are very rarely thoughtless. What the !@#$%^&*? I'm arguing that it's right to leave him in the cage and you're arguing that it's wrong, that's the argument here.... So tell me why criminals are punished Aileron.

Possibly in the future they could benefit your life because you saved them (if they're not too busy wallowing in self-despair) but at the moment you make that decision on whether or not to save them there can be no immediate positives, only a possibility that they're a madman who had locked himself up in a cage in the one shred of sanity he had left. If he's a madman then opening the cage would threaten your survival. If somebody wants to kill themselves then that is their choice, they feel its right to kill themselves and we'd be imposing our version of what is right onto them if we were to take action to save them. I wouldn't appreciate someone forcing me to believe in Christianity so i'm sure that someone who believes they are right to kill themselves wouldn't appreciate someone forcing them to live. I would by all means try and persuade them from safely outside the cage if i had nothing more entertaining to do.

I disagree with your statement. Am i right? Are you right? Who knows. So where is your absolute right and wrong? One of us is right so their must be some sort of truth, it's just we will never know what it is. You can never presume you are absolutely right. We will forever be uncertain but to say that uncertainty is the truth is a contradiction. Therefore we must say that everything is uncertain including this statement and because the possibility of everything being uncertain is uncertain this statement that encomp!@#$%^&*es every possible known truth makes knowing truth impossible. We will forever be oblivious to truth and any absolutes of right and wrong

Now ask yourself: Is the world a better place with this person in it? This person is clearly insane and unpredictable. This person could snap and kill you. When moral codes disregard survival you can only be looking to earn browny points with God. If somebody wants to end their life then they have nothing worth adding to anyone elses. Holy crap, i guess the true presumptious self made a resurfacing. I've done the quiz once before about 3 months ago and i couldn't remember the answers i gave then, all i remember is it was 96% satanist. This time i got 100%... so what... i guess i'm becoming more in-tune with what i am. "I'm not a Satanist?" Actually you're right i'm not, i share their beliefs but i would never group myself in with other people who call themselves Satanists. I've read the Satanic bible but i don't agree with all the magical bulls**t. I've dyed my hair before yes, but what is wrong with that, i look quite normal now. I have light shortish brown hair, NO PIERCINGS (not ever), and i'm wearing a red t-shirt lol.. so thats hardly goth/satanist attire now is it?!? I make decisions based on what is best for me, very often these are what Christians would call good decisions, sometimes they are not. The only major difference is my morals come from the basic survival instinct rather than some mystical image of perfection in the sky. You may say: Do not kill because it's one of the ten commandments I'll say: Do not kill because then people will want to kill you or lock you up to protect their own survival. Some people are so deluded by their illusions of right and wrong. Why do you really think we lock up murderers? Really think about it.

You scored as Satanism. Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism. Satanism 100% Agnosticism 96% Paganism 83% Atheism 75% Buddhism 63% Islam 29% Judaism 25% Christianity 4% Hinduism 4% It's exactly as i expected in pretty much this exact order from top to bottom. An accurate quiz indeed.

I believe that if the people of a country want a military meritocracy then they should fight to get one. If they want the opposite then they should fight for that. They shouldn't have to deal with some foreign power waltzing in to do it for them. Iraq wasn't a democracy because not enough people wanted one, simple as that. Who cares if Saddam was abusing the power he had, if 90%+ of the people of Iraq cared enough to topple him they would have done so. And thats the key, they have to do it themselves so you know they give a !@#$%^&*. America has !@#$%^&*umed that their version of right and wrong is the correct version and they've imposed that on another country where a significantly less proportion of the country agree with them.

Lets get this straight. How do any of you know whether right or wrong exist? For everything that you think is right in this world a great number of people will think you are wrong. Who are we to say anyone else is wrong? And the Kurdish people were right? What a very generalised statement. Some like it, some don't. Those who don't think they are right and we are wrong. This act of imposing our 'righteousness' on another people is now threatening our own survival both in Iraq and at home. Precisely! So where on earth do you get your "absolute" right and wrong from? I'm of the opinion that patriotism is wrong, you may disagree with me and that doesn't make either of us right. They may not be patriots but to me that is a good thing. Would you say going to war to avenge your dead family who were killed in bomb blasts is a better reason? I think i would. Hitler believed he was right, many agreed with him at the time, if more people agreed with him and he won the war then the established version of what is right or wrong would be completely different. Hitler was as right as the amount of people who agreed with him and who still do agree with him, that may not be a majority, but that sure as !@#$%^&* doesn't make him wrong. Oh common don't be so blind, where do you think they acquire those modern weapons from? I would call that interfering. There goes your self-righteous at!@#$%^&*ude again. Until the people of Iraq see that a democratic equal lifestyle is best for them there won't ever be that way of life in their country. The only way to end up with it is to let them fight it out amongst themselves, whoever has the most passion and desire will win. Who cares how much blood is spilled because it's THEIR FIGHT, not ours. Now instead we are spilling our blood in New York, London, Madrid, Eqypt and all the other places around the world where these angry people with "modern weapons" are going to to exact their revenge. Oh i'm sure America's greed will do a good job of making very few people rich while 99% of the population live in poverty. Exactly they'll see what they've done and appreciate its importance. I'm not very up to date with news at the moment but last time i heard everyone in the proposed Iraqi government ws fighting for as much power as they could get, all wannabe Saddams who only sit at a "unified" table because the US is making them. Correct me if i'm wrong but that isn't realisation.

Korn are loony toons, they do the voices and everything, didn't you know that?

They don't know any other way cos they'll all cheap white trash, like Eminem, but then they fought back avenging their incestual ways to become super heroes! As one loony-toon once said: Your father had your mother, your mother had your brother, it's just too bad your father's mad your mother's now your lover; and suddenly all was well in Bible Bashing Village. Where were we? oh yes..

Well he had a brain. He no longer has one because rhcp_chick ate it with some fava beans and a nice chianti...

Bush is saying to the people of Iraq "we know what is right for you so we're gonna bomb all these fascist ASSS because we like you "innocent" people" What he really should be saying is "we disagree with Saddam and his old regime but if you don't like it then rebel against him and show him". The fact is that Bush is making the decision for the people of Iraq and killing a bunch of them in the process. There is no right and wrong, when will these dummies in government realise that the world will be able to develop at its own pace? How would america have liked it if some more "developed" country had interfered when the whole place was a racist !@#$%^&*ehole full of ignorant white descimantory ASSS. They'd have gone to war with them. Thats what some of the people in Iraq are doing with America now. Let people solve their own problems because they'll never understand what is wrong until they stand up against it and solve it themselves. America isn't the worlds policeman, its the worlds judge jury and "god-given" executioner!

rhcp chick eats brains?

Drunken man agrees with hackysack.

Brilliant Monte. When a government declares themselves the judge of what is right and wrong there will always be more bloodshed. That's because there is no right or wrong, only the will to survive. Until we understand that morals are not god-given and come from our survival instincts and those of our family we will always get governments imposing their personal "god-given" versions of right and wrong. We went to Iraq to "help" based on our god-given morals when in fact we should have stayed out because helping would threaten our own survival. It may sound selfish at first sight until people understand our nature and the evolution of morals.

Agree with Monte.

I don't like 3,5,8. I don't have any respect for GW Bush so does this mean i cannot talk about him honestly? Respect is earnt not given away. As for religion, why can't we talk about it? In many countries religion and politics are intertwined as you well know. Bush tries hard to appeal to Christian voters and i wouldn't mind seeing a discussion on exactly how he is catering for the needs of Christians (possibly above other religions); And what about a discussion on how Islam affects Middle East Politics or the situation in Israel or what about Northern Irelands religious tensions, i could go on... If you're worried about "unnecessary flamefests" then that is covered in Rule 2.

NEWS FLASH! IT'S A COVER-UP! The guy who got shot was not wearing a bulky coat because it was in fact just a denim jacket! He was not running onto the train with officers in hot-pursuit because he got on and sat down in a seat after walking onto the carriage. He was never identified as a bomber... although the officers were "unsure" and said "he deserved another look". The reason he was suspected was because he came out a house to which a car was registered that was linked to a terrorist cell. At the time he exited the house the guy who was supposed to be watching it was "taking a leak" and therefore said that the rest of the team needed to "take another look". He was subsequently followed, not chased onto the train where he sat down and was continually watched by the surveilance team who had boarded the train. Suddenly armed police officers from special ops approached the platform, one of the surveilance guys !@#$%^&*umed they were after their suspect and said "he's here" after which the surveilance guy tried to restrain the suspect (probably the wrong thing to do), the special ops guys then shot him and the surveilance guy reported this as "a bullet flew past my left ear". None of this explains why he was shot 8 times (yes 8 now, not 5 or 7) and it seems like the armed officers panicked in response to the surveilance guy saying "He's Here". Whatever it was, it was wrong and it was a cover-up. He wasn't wearing a bulky coat, he wasn't running away and he wasn't ignoring police warnings. All that will happen probably is some guy in the police leadership will take the fall and be fired only to get a job in customs or the bbc. Then it'll all blow over. This man died for nothing. However this report conflicts with the eye-witness account i heard live on the bbc after the shooting. Who knows whether the current story is likely to change again...

The guy was an idiot, i don't like speaking bad of the dead but he was. The bulky coat on the summers day that could easily conceal explosives, the running away from the police, the aim to get onto the tube train. I think he was guilty of something if he was running away like that, probably nothing to do with terrorism but why run if you haven't commited some sort of crime? The fact is if he was a bomber and suceeded due to the police not head-shotting him then we'd all be saying that the police are not doing enough to protect us. From the situation that the police were in they had no choice. I don't know why they shot him that many times in the head... once or possibly twice would have been enough. It amused me when the BBC on the day after described a police raid as "a group of elite police officers using TAZER GUNS to incapacitate the suspects"... and then proceeded to go into an in depth anaylsis of tazer guns saying how great the police are and so on. It was obviously to make the police look skillful, proffessional and merciful in response to the killing the day before. News should be reported as it is, not editted to sway the publics opinion even if in this case that "swaying" is pretty much harmless. Also the BBC stopped saying terrorist and changed the word to "bomber" at some point in their reports which angered alot of people... apparently the word terrorist wasn't acceptable for some reason. Complete rubbish, we always knew that it was a war. Is your opinion that America was the only country that recognised it? Britain knew, every person in this country knew, it has been big news since it started. This terrorist attack was expected and it certainly doesn't surprise me either being British. It doesn't change my opinion on how involved we are in this war because it was clear how much we were involved from the start. Oh, you didn't say this couple of weeks ago. I agree, we kill innocent Muslims so they kill us. I heard an extremist muslim say on a television do!@#$%^&*entary: "In Christianity they turn the other cheek, well in my philosophy if someone slaps me on the cheek then i'll slap him twice back". Christianity also has the message: " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Bah humbug, its always the same, i open up to someone and they run away, i might as well kill myself now. Shame on you.. you wicked whiley coyote, no more dynamite for you.

Well it was worth a try. Some people just get caught up in the moment. Ya know thats what Hitler did, he spoke like a revolutionary and became a warlord with lots of teen girls begging for him to implant a part of his brilliance into them. Now i'm not saying that to be brilliant you have to desire under-age sex with cute hairless german girls, what i'm saying is that talking big makes one look big, and when you look big people think you have a big willy. Can we say willy on these forums? Well i said it, you probably don't know what willy means though do you? You can make an easy educated guess if you're not British, but i have no idea if you are, i don't know everything, why would you be thinking that?