Another one lost to the dark side

No argument there... just that this made me wonder.

Oh well, she has been a member for a while. Maybe she got married recently.

hmmm. profile says she was never married.

Seriously?

If they believe that a particular perspective is correct (specifically, believing that you have a measure of control over the universe is an expression of ego and protecting that ego will lead you to pain) then translating that belief into physical action is integrity -- a state in which one's beliefs and one's actions are in harmony. I think most people find integrity to be a virtue.

"I don't doubt that. But can Buddhist monks truly be said to always be practical? "

My point was that practical means to be put into practice; to be used in day to day situations. They demonstrate that their beliefs can be practiced.

Had I agreed with them then I would be a Buddhist monk as well.

I must admit that I feel a bit daunted in this discussion on morals because there are so many different view points and so many primary positions that must be established before any higher level conclusions can be reached.

Maybe it is overly simplistic, but I tend to think there are 2 kinds of people: sheep and wolves.

Sheep take what they are given, wolves fight for what they earned.

If I have been waiting in line at the DMV for 90 minutes and someone walks in and cuts in front of me, I am going to say something. Sorry, fair is fair and they have no right to do that. Alternately, if I am at the supermarket and someone behind me has 1 item I will offer to let them go ahead of me; I am not inconsiderate.

As far as taxes go, that is a little more complicated because it is a bigger picture but it is still the same idea. As a society, we have given up our right to initiating physical force/compulsion in order to work together better. We have relinquished that power to the government so that they may use it on our behalf. That is why law enforcement agencies are allowed to break into a criminal's house and take him to jail (under a strict set of guidelines), but vigilantes are not.

When the government uses force (imprisonment is a use of force and you WILL go to jail for tax evasion) to take what I have worked for to do things that I believe are wrong, then I get angry.

Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with getting angry when I see an injustice. For you to suggest that I am too insignificant ("each of us is just a speck of dust in time and space") to matter and I should just be silent and sit down doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe you are more of a sheep than I am.

nope, because I am married. If I was single? yup.

Alright, here's one...


"FREEEEEEEEDOM!"


or this interplay....


Stephen: [starts laughing] Him? That can't be William Wallace. I'm *prettier* than this man!

[to the sky]

Stephen: Alright, Father, I'll ask him.

[to William]

Stephen: If I risk my neck for you, will I get a chance to kill Englishmen?

Hamish: Is your father a ghost, or do you converse with the Almighty?

Stephen: In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

[to the sky]

Stephen: Yes, Father!

[to Hamish]

Stephen: The Almight says, "Don't change the subject, just answer the fvckin' question."

Hamish: Mind your tongue.

Campbell: Insane Irish.

Stephen: [draws a dagger on Campbell; everyone draws weapons] Smart enough to get a dagger past your guards, old man.

William Wallace: That's my friend, Irishman. And the answer to your question is "yes". You fight for me, you get to kill the English.

Stephen: [grins] Excellent!

[removes his dagger]

Stephen: Stephen is my name. I the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

Hamish: "Your island"? You mean Ireland?

Stephen: Yeah. It's mine.

Hamish: You're a madman.

Stephen: [nods and starts laughing, then Hamish does as well] I've come to the right place, then.

I know a couple of Buddhist monks that would disagree with you on that.

?? A Few Good Men ??

"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Dude! Cyrus got SHOT!!!

Kind of switched here. You start of asking about right and wrong and move to "rights". True, there is a link between a society's prevailing ethics and the rights it affords its members. But there is a difference.



I think the biggest difference would be the classification between a domestic pet (dogs and cats), livestock (domesticated animals bred for consumption) and wild animals. However, America has strict regulations on how and when any animal can be killed. You are not supposed to euthanize your own pets, there are regulations in regards to livestock and wild animals have hunting seasons (some -- like song birds -- are illegal to kill at any time).

I don't necessarily think they have rights, so much as their owners (i.e., they are property) have responsibilities.



With alien life forms (and even with some terrestrial ones like dolphins or chimps) I think it boils down to a question of sentience. I am not sure if there is a legal definition of sentience but it would probably have something to do with checking for self-awareness, communication, transfer of knowledge to novel situations, etc... But you can be sure that any legal test for sentience would be based on a human benchmark.

But about the idea of rights...

Rights are protections or opportunities afforded by a society to its members. They may be (should be??) a reflection of the society's morality, but they are not morals. If I remember correctly, morals are the behavioral rules that one must live to live a good life. So...

Ethics answers "what is good"
Morality tells you "how" to be good
Rights make sure that society will allow you to follow the "how".

If it is determined that it is good to work and own the fruits of your labor, then it will be moral to work and society will protect your right to private property.

If instead, it is determined that taking care of others is a greater good, then it will be moral to provide for those who are less "fortunate" and society will give others the right to have your property by redistributing property from those who have too much to those who have too little.

Yeah, go ahead and laugh...

But you should have seen her walking home, now THAT was funny!

All time best fricken movie ever...


V: [Evey pulls out her mace] I can assure you I mean you no harm.

Evey Hammond: Who are you?

V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.

Evey Hammond: Well I can see that.

V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

Evey Hammond: Oh. Right.

V: But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

[carves V into poster on wall]

V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

[giggles]

V: Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?

V: I am quite sure they will say so. But to whom, might I ask, am I speaking with?

Evey Hammond: I'm Evey.

V: Evey? E-V. Of course you are.

Evey Hammond: What does that mean?

V: It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences.

Well... both hawks and crows spend a great deal of their time focused on the earth...just seeing it from a different perspective. They use distance to see a larger picture before deciding the moment they will dip down to the dangerous solid ground.

Welcome to the forums. I kind of think you answered your own question...

"Are men truely intimidated by nice-looking women? If so, they need to give themselves a swift kick in the a$$ and get over it. You never know what'll happen if you just try to talk."
.
.
.
"I see lots of good-looking, single men, but most don't give me a second glance. Talk about knocking someone down a few notches!" You think they are not interested in you because they don't give you any signs. Do you give them signs that you are approachable??

I agree with Buttah, it takes more than a pretty face to get many men to talk to a woman. The lady has to show some sign of interest... a smile, a look... whatever.

(NOTE: Depending on your place of employment, flashing your TaTa's while at work probably wouldn't be a good ice breaker)

*EDIT*... just saw that you are a waitress. I always thought that waitresses were flirted with on a regular basis. But I can kind of understand your point a little better now because some guys might confuse your signs of interest as friendly service to get a tip.

Pull her hair and run away. That always used to work for me.

go to your profile, click the location link "Coventry" next to your name and it will search by location.

I hope.

They do have some good qualities that will help them in the future. They have a militant devotion to fairness and have an intuitive understanding of power.

But so many of them lack the fortitude required for a long battle that I doubt they will have much effect on things.

I seem to remember hearing that the age of "being an adult" -- meaning becoming self-reliant and developing a mature perspective on life -- has steadily increased in America. I think it is somewhere around 26 years of age now.

Nonetheless, I shall hope and do what I can to teach those who fall into my grasp to question everything.