JEWS AND YOU AND JEWS

[moralist]

"Laws"? How about "facts" ("of nature")? Facts of human nature imply morality for human nature for it's a fact that man is the free-willed animal needing a morality all objectified--that is congruent with same. If you say we don't know much about human nature you are saying knowing more is, ergo, the way to an objective morality but we just ain't there yet. Instead you repeat your standard mantra claiming truth but not truth from any law or fact of nature I can figure or imagine.

--Brant

baseball is a fact and it is all made up by people. It does not flow logically from the laws of physics. Like anything else that is possible or actual, it does not contradict the laws of physics either. The laws of nature/physics constrain human artifacts. It is impossible for a human artifact to contradict the laws of nature/physics.

Morality is like baseball. It is all made up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Individual rights are made up, morality is made up, philosophy* is made up, science is made up. All are human creations. They reference the human animal and its human nature. They reference reality.

--Brant

*Objectivism

... and reality is the final judge who renders the verdict.

[moralist]

I believe that I had made no reference to a time frame of those consequences. That is solely determined by the length of the fall before hitting the ground.

Would you enlighten us as to what those consequences will be? Because I'm not seeing any, and, at this point, I have no reason to believe there will be any.

Who is "us"?

Have you become the self appointed spokesperson for an imaginary group?

Only the person would have the opportunity to discover what the consequences would be, and that person's belief would have absolutely no effect on the consequences.

Reality is what is... even if no one believes it is.

[anthony]

The "muddling through" is precisely a result of the lack of a real morality, grounded in reality (the nature of man and existence.).

So, it is a circular argument to maintain that to get where we are, relativism and pragmatism must have worked, will always work - and "had to be".

One needs to discriminate the man-made from the metaphysical given.

(Where did you get the idea I raised The Golden Rule? That's way off).

1. We do not have a full empirically grounded notion of what Man is. We do not know thoroughly how our brains and bodies work. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of that question.

2. Our best knowledge of existence is the knowledge of the physical world which tells us little or nothing about morality and ethics (that is my main point by the way). Our moral and ethical ideas are conventions and do not flow inexorably from the nature of the physical world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The basic error - empiricism.

One can put a brain under an electron microscope, but not consciousness.

Rand put it concisely:

"Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim:

What do I know? - and : How do I know it?

It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the "How?" - which then enables the special sciences provide the answers to the "What?""

All that apparently interests you is the scientific "what?", denying that philosophy must supply the "How?"

Here is what Rand saw as the legacy of Kant:

"The desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity".[AR]

From that attack on man's mind follows altruism - by denying the individual's responsibility to single-handedly create his concepts..

Consciousness is self-evident with one's experience, introspection, induction and (volitional) concept-creation.

So we know its properties, by its effects and capabilities. But it is not automatic, with every step a conscious choice.

Choice -> morality; no choice -> no morality possible.

There is the moral basis for rational egoism, and how it is derived exactly from reality.

We do not have to know "how our brains and bodies work", to understand the nature of man ( i.e. the nature of his consciousness). Empirical deduction alone won't get us there. If the "nature of man" is not generally comprehended ~by now~

as it must have been known to an ancient conceptual man, then mankind has a problem.

[Robert Baratheon]

I believe that I had made no reference to a time frame of those consequences. That is solely determined by the length of the fall before hitting the ground.

Would you enlighten us as to what those consequences will be? Because I'm not seeing any, and, at this point, I have no reason to believe there will be any.

Who is "us"?

Have you become the self appointed spokesperson for an imaginary group?

Only the person would have the opportunity to discover what the consequences would be, and that person's belief would have absolutely no effect on the consequences.

Reality is what is... even if no one believes it is.

"Us" refers to the participants in this thread. I would never presume to speak for them, but I can ask you to explain yourself for our collective benefit.

You stated that there would invariably be consequences for violating a moral law. I asked for your evidence. You can provide none. I provided you with a counterexample, and you were unable to explain it within your framework, simply repeating your dogmatic assertion that there will be consequences. This is why I am calling what you are preaching here a religion. It is based on nothing, it is adopted on faith, and it's about as convincing as the last Jehova's witness on whom I had the pleasure of shutting my door.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, without data I can say everything costs something. What that cost will be varies.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

[moralist]

I believe that I had made no reference to a time frame of those consequences. That is solely determined by the length of the fall before hitting the ground.

Would you enlighten us as to what those consequences will be? Because I'm not seeing any, and, at this point, I have no reason to believe there will be any.

Who is "us"?

Have you become the self appointed spokesperson for an imaginary group?

Only the person would have the opportunity to discover what the consequences would be, and that person's belief would have absolutely no effect on the consequences.

Reality is what is... even if no one believes it is.

"Us" refers to the participants in this thread. I would never presume to speak for them, but I can ask you to explain yourself for our collective benefit.

You stated that there would invariably be consequences for violating a moral law. I asked for your evidence. You can provide none. I provided you with a counterexample, and you were unable to explain it within your framework, simply repeating your dogmatic assertion that there will be consequences. This is why I am calling what you are preaching here a religion. It is based on nothing, it is adopted on faith, and it's about as convincing as the last Jehova's witness on whom I had the pleasure of shutting my door.

What odd behavior, Robert...

First you declare that you don't presume to speak for others, and yet in that very same line of text, you do. Liberals commonly use collective groupspeak. I didn't believe you were one, but then again I could easily have been mistaken as on forums it takes time to "see" others.

First off, I'd like to be clear on this. Is the example you cited an actual real world personal experience of your own, or is it just a hypothetical used only for illustration?

After you answer, I'll be happy to respond to your comments.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

That is the definition I have always used, ever since I was a kid. It never occurred to me there would be another definition.


That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Since the other meaning is coined by Objectivists perhaps they should be written $morality and $ethics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

[Robert Baratheon]

What odd behavior, Robert...

First you declare that you don't presume to speak for others, and yet in that very same line of text, you do. Liberals commonly use collective groupspeak. I didn't believe you were one, but then again I could easily have been mistaken as on forums it takes time to "see" others.

First off, I'd like to be clear on this. Is the example you cited an actual real world personal experience of your own, or is it just a hypothetical used only for illustration?

After you answer, I'll be happy to respond to your comments.

Greg

I never attributed any words or views to anyone except myself. It was a simple acknowledgement that others were participating in the discussion. In any case, all of this is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.

Yes, my example is an "actual real world personal experience," not that it matters in the slightest to the concepts we're discussing. This was clear from how I originally presented the example, and it did not require further clarification.

[Brant Gaede]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

[moralist]

What odd behavior, Robert...

First you declare that you don't presume to speak for others, and yet in that very same line of text, you do. Liberals commonly use collective groupspeak. I didn't believe you were one, but then again I could easily have been mistaken as on forums it takes time to "see" others.

First off, I'd like to be clear on this. Is the example you cited an actual real world personal experience of your own, or is it just a hypothetical used only for illustration?

After you answer, I'll be happy to respond to your comments.

Greg

I never attributed any words or views to anyone except myself. It was a simple acknowledgement that others were participating in the discussion. In any case, all of this is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.

Yes, my example is an "actual real world personal experience," not that it matters in the slightest to the concepts we're discussing. This was clear from how I originally presented the example, and it did not require further clarification.

Thanks for making it clear that the example was your own personal experience. I had made the faulty assumption that it was not, and had addressed the previous comments in the third person. So now the same principle applies in the first person. In a situation such as you described, it's useful to examine the behavior which gave rise to it, because if that remains unobserved, the same situation repeats itself.

To sum up... in your view you say there are no consequences, and in my view there are.

In declaring that there are no consequences set into motion by the situation you described, you didn't realize that the situation itself was a consequence of behavior which preceded it. The consequence of denying the reality that there are consequences to your actions is that that you still remain the same person you were before it happened... someone who does not properly manage their time. And an opportunity to learn and to change was lost. However, another opportunity will come along soon enough.

This doesn't even come anywhere close to what is generally known as "evil". It's such a small oversight, and yet the same moral principle applies, albeit on a very small scale.

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

[Brant Gaede]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

[Robert Baratheon]

To sum up... in your view you say there are no consequences, and in my view there are.

In declaring that there are no consequences set into motion by the situation you described, you didn't realize that the situation itself was a consequence of behavior which preceded it. The consequence of denying the reality that there are consequences to your actions is that that you still remain the same person you were before it happened... someone who does not properly manage their time. And an opportunity to learn and to change was lost. However, another opportunity will come along soon enough.

This doesn't even come anywhere close to what is generally known as "evil". It's such a small oversight, and yet the same moral principle applies, albeit on a very small scale.

The example has nothing to do with managing time. It could equally have been that I received a booty call on my cell and chose to leave for that reason. And you still haven't told me what these consequences supposedly are. You're completely missing the point and becoming more confused by the moment. Whatever... it's fine. I know when the well is dry, and this one has been like the Sahara for several posts now.

[moralist]

To sum up... in your view you say there are no consequences, and in my view there are.

In declaring that there are no consequences set into motion by the situation you described, you didn't realize that the situation itself was a consequence of behavior which preceded it. The consequence of denying the reality that there are consequences to your actions is that that you still remain the same person you were before it happened... someone who does not properly manage their time. And an opportunity to learn and to change was lost. However, another opportunity will come along soon enough.

This doesn't even come anywhere close to what is generally known as "evil". It's such a small oversight, and yet the same moral principle applies, albeit on a very small scale.

The example has nothing to do with managing time.

The specific consequence is that you remain the same person with exactly the same attitude towards failing to properly manage time that you have right now... and are no better now than you were before the experience.

Denied causality guarantees repeated experience.

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

[Brant Gaede]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance.

In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America.

If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance.

In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America.

If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right.

Greg

The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.)

--Brant

the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky?

[caroljane]

God talked to Bush, and the poor guy is still trying to figger out some of the big words.

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance.

In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America.

If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right.

Greg

The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.)

--Brant

the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky?

Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences.

The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance.

In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America.

If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right.

Greg

The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.)

--Brant

the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky?

Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences.

The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own.

Greg

Now you've reduced the whole thing to an argument about you and one about me. I'm not aware of personally suffering, btw, from doing good.

--Brant

to the man?

[ginny]

Brant, please don't be so hard on Jean D'arc. Women in those days didn't have many opportunities, and the poor even less. If they could make themselves and others believe they had a hotline to god, it was probably worth a few dinners. I'm sniffing out some self-interest.

Vivent longtemps le roi!

[moralist]

That's a simple one, Baal.

There is no morality on that island because morality can only apply when there are other people with whom to interact.

My position, precisely

That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness.

Ellen

Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important?

--Brant

That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends".

There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work).

--Brant

Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up.

There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs.

Doing good = Happiness

Joan of Arc!

--Brant

(you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line)

I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance.

In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America.

If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right.

Greg

The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.)

--Brant

the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky?

Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences.

The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own.

Greg

Now you've reduced the whole thing to an argument about you and one about me. I'm not aware of personally suffering, btw, from doing good.

--Brant

to the man?