--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > IOW: As far as Xeno is concerned, there is no need for > > honesty or integrity. Just too damn much trouble.
And this is just meaningless bafflegab. > I did not say there was no need for honesty or integrity. These are valuable > assets for civilisation. I said that from a particular point of view, which > was an interpretation of a religious point of view, were it to be the > situation, I asked a question 'Where does that leave us as far as honesty and > integrity? That is, if a religious point of view was essentially 'bad', > 'corrupt'; that the models of behavior presented (for example, to expand on > this) the genocide that YHWH perpetrates in the Bible, were they to be > adopted by humans, honesty and integrity would preumably fall by the wayside. > The views on honesty and integrity on FFL are widely divergent; personal > attacks and the accusation that so-and-so is a liar or lacks integrity are > rampant. There does not seem to be a judge and jury here, though some appear > to want to take on that role. > > The correlation of name and form might be invoked here. Suppose there was a > person 'X' concerning whom I felt displeasure. And then I thought and said I > would like this person to die, heartfelt and honestly. And then succeeded in > making that possibility an actuality. Now is that dishonest because I thought > said and did exactly what I intended? Does it lack integrity because the fact > was accomplished? Honesty has a dark twin, and integrity can cast a evil > shadow. Tyrants and petty offcials have this kind of integrity, but it is not > particularly suited to civilised life unless some very strong external > retraints can be applied to people who think this way. >
