Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: (explanation on church stuff - thanks) In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? I'm not sure on the first, maybe, but not at all on the second. I disagree with the Bush approach, but the removal of Hussein (and all like despots) was desireable. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 12:09 AM 4/10/2005 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: >> And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, >> would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for >> issuing a final decision? > >I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by >making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics >I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on >other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? On the other hands, he was extremely open-minded on such subjects as multiculturalism, ecumenism, and reaching out to other faiths. His "Theology of the Body" in many respects overhauled Church teaching on sexuality - while still reaching the conclusion that contraception is intrinsically immoral. Thus, given the context of his views on birth control I can only conclude that he was open-minded on the subject, but simply reached a different conclusion than you or I would have. On the matter of priestly celibacy, I think that he was almost inherently open-minded, as the Church teaching on that issue is hardly even close to definitive (unlike the argument that you could make in regards to the ordination of women - although I would probably still disagree with you on that point.)You may have a stronger argument on the case of gay marriage, although this issue has only been seriously debated so recently that I think that it is simply too hard to judge given the context. Without serious debate within the Church on gay marriage, it would be virtually impossible for someone who open-mindedly concluded opposition to gay marriage to demonstrate that open-mindedness in his position. >In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then >one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: War of 1812 Re: New Pope?
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: War of 1812 Re: New Pope? Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:10:49 -0400 At 05:51 PM 4/9/2005 -0400, Damon Agretto wrote: > >>I believe that USA vs. England in 1775 and again in 1812 would both qualify >>as well? > >Perhaps. There's more mitigating circumstances, though. In 1775, while the >US was independently pursuing war for a time, in the end the French >alliance was important. In 1812 the British had much (MUCH) bigger fish to >fry... As something of a counter-point to that, in the famous Battle of New Orleans, the British invasion fleet was, I believe, accompanied by at least two fully-stocked colony ships.Thus, while the British did have some distractions in Europe, they also did attack the United States with what they thought was sufficient force to win. The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky. --Solomon Short/aka - David Gerrold-- -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
War of 1812 Re: New Pope?
At 05:51 PM 4/9/2005 -0400, Damon Agretto wrote: > >>I believe that USA vs. England in 1775 and again in 1812 would both qualify >>as well? > >Perhaps. There's more mitigating circumstances, though. In 1775, while the >US was independently pursuing war for a time, in the end the French >alliance was important. In 1812 the British had much (MUCH) bigger fish to >fry... As something of a counter-point to that, in the famous Battle of New Orleans, the British invasion fleet was, I believe, accompanied by at least two fully-stocked colony ships.Thus, while the British did have some distractions in Europe, they also did attack the United States with what they thought was sufficient force to win. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
In a message dated 4/11/2005 12:22:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Wow, any more interesting folks around? > > > >The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. > > Agreed, hence my regret in using "better" in my first post. > > >Natural selection is short sigthed and opportunistic. Apparent trends > >reflect consistent environmental conditions that favor some adaptation. > >Complexity in living > >organisms has increased throughout history but that does not mean that > >there is a direction in favor of complexity since along with this trend > >there have been organisms that have become simpler. If one were to judge > >the most "successful" groups based on total biomass, number of species > >or longevity, bacteria win hands down. > > > >Even if one accepts that increasing complexity on balance is increasing > >and that complex organisms (like us) have had a dominant effect on life > >history that does not mean that there is some inate drive to complexity > >it simply means that in a world filled with successful organisms the > >only way to succeed is to try something new and new things are usually > >more complex than existent > >things > > So there is no linearity ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
In a message dated 4/11/2005 12:22:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Wow, any more interesting folks around? His wife is the ex-wife of Richie Havens. Quite an interesting person > > > >The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. > > > So there is no linearity > > Things may be linear but this is not in a predetermined direction. There is > no "drive to complexity, no higher and lower organism. Evolution may go in > one direction for quite awhile and then go in another direction or it may go > in > several directions at once (in some genera size may increase while in others > it will decrease. Humans are part of a linear trend in primate evolution to > prolonged childhood complex social behavior and intelligence. This may or may > not turn out to be a "good traint". Certainly before we entered the scene > primates were in decline for about `15 million years. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
Zim wrote: He is my next door neighbor. Kind of a dour guy. Wow, any more interesting folks around? The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. Agreed, hence my regret in using "better" in my first post. Natural selection is short sigthed and opportunistic. Apparent trends reflect consistent environmental conditions that favor some adaptation. Complexity in living organisms has increased throughout history but that does not mean that there is a direction in favor of complexity since along with this trend there have been organisms that have become simpler. If one were to judge the most "successful" groups based on total biomass, number of species or longevity, bacteria win hands down. Even if one accepts that increasing complexity on balance is increasing and that complex organisms (like us) have had a dominant effect on life history that does not mean that there is some inate drive to complexity it simply means that in a world filled with successful organisms the only way to succeed is to try something new and new things are usually more complex than existent things So there is no linearity. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
In a message dated 4/9/2005 10:52:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "Evolutionary dead ends are very common in the human fossil record. In > fact, there are people who would claim that we probably don't know any > direct ancestors to Homo sapiens in that record. But if the pattern of > human evolution has been one of the production of new species and the > selective extinction most species in the fossil record, then clearly many, > many species that we know as fossils were evolutionary dead ends in the > sense that they didn't give rise to descendent species." > > Ian Tattersall, Curator in the Department of Anthropology at the American > Museum of Natural History in New York > He is my next door neighbor. Kind of a dour guy. The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. Natural selection is short sigthed and opportunistic. Apparent trends reflect consistent environmental conditions that favor some adaptation. Complexity in living organisms has increased throughout history but that does not mean that there is a direction in favor of complexity since along with this trend there have been organisms that have become simpler. If one were to judge the most "successful" groups based on total biomass, number of species or longevity, bacteria win hands down. Even if one accepts that increasing complexity on balance is increasing and that complex organisms (like us) have had a dominant effect on life history that does not mean that there is some inate drive to complexity it simply means that in a world filled with successful organisms the only way to succeed is to try something new and new things are usually more complex than existent things ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:09 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > JDG wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. > > ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. > > > And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, > > would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for > > issuing a final decision? > > I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by > making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics > I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on > other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? > > In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then > one is inherently closed minded to some extent. JP II's legacy was very complicated. In interfaith relationships, he proved to be extraordinarily open minded. He publicly prayed with a wide range of Christian and non-Christian believers. He visited mosques and synagogues. Although church teachings had already been that non-Christians could be saved by the power of Jesus, his willingness to state this belief in such a public symbolic manner was profound. Remember, the Catholic church expresses much symbolically and each step like this has profound meaning. There are also personal stories concerning people of other faiths who worked with him. The Jewish conductor who worked for the Vatican talked about his relationship with the Pope. He said that relationship was the basis of great spiritual growth...and that he became more Jewish as a result of his dealings with the pope. Never, he said, did the Pope try to convert him. This speaks to a tremendous openness to God working with others in many ways. On the flip side of the coin, he presided over unprecedented centralization of the Catholic church. The two previous popes (not counting JP I) appointed bishops and cardinals based on a number of factors. They gave strong heed to the chancery offices, they tried to pick people with strong pastoral skills. Paul VI, of course, wrote the birth control document, but he still picked bishops and cardinals in this manner. JP II didn't. He picked only those who strongly agreed with him on virtually all counts. He moved decision making from the diocese and councils of bishops back to the Vatican. Indeed, there was even a proposal at the Vatican that virtually all of his important decisions were to be considered infallible...a drastic change from the previous views. One of the best ways to understand this apparent contradiction is to note that he had a much different background than most Americans or Western Europeans. From his perspective, Americans are fairly spoiled and self centered. Given the tremendous suffering elsewhere in the world, our complaints look like whining. It will be _very_ interesting if we get a Third World pope. Their perspective will be decidedly un-American. Conservatives may be upset with economic pronouncements. Liberals may be upset to learn that, in non-economic matters, Africa and Latin America are much more conservative than the US. It should be interesting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 02:09 AM Sunday 4/10/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. OTOH, one could also say that if someone has no preference whatsoever on an issue, the issue must be of no importance at all to that person, as it's part of being human to have opinions on topics which are of interest to one. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
At 07:51 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >>> Oh, and if you looked at the individual data points would evolution go >>> directly from good to better to best? >> >> What is "good" in the context of evolution? > >Poor wording on my part. Measure of success increased linearly, maybe? > >> Isn't the answer to the above: "by definition, yes?" >> >> O.k., maybe you could point to a few exceptions, like say the non-avian >> dinosaurs, but for the most part, I think that the above answer fits > >"Evolutionary dead ends are very common in the human fossil record. In >fact, there are people who would claim that we probably don't know any >direct ancestors to Homo sapiens in that record. But if the pattern of >human evolution has been one of the production of new species and the >selective extinction most species in the fossil record, then clearly many, >many species that we know as fossils were evolutionary dead ends in the >sense that they didn't give rise to descendent species." > >Ian Tattersall, Curator in the Department of Anthropology at the American >Museum of Natural History in New York But on the other hand, those species would never have risen in the first place had they not been evolutionary successful. The fact that other species came along later that were even more successful in no way implies that these species weren't successful in their own right John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 07:37 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> And of course, the startling conclusion from Doug's remarks is that the >> alternative to "backsliding" is a one-Party hegemony of the >> Democrats. > >More insults. Is that how they teach debate at Case Western or is it just >a bad habit you picked up on the internet? Uh. right. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 07:35 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> Out of curiosity, why do you equate "open-minded" with "agrees with >> [you]"? > >Out of curiosity is it possible for you to carry on a debate without >heaving insults? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. Are there issues where you disagree with the Pope where you consider him to be "open-minded"? Alternatively, are there issues where the Pope agrees with you where you consider him to be "closed-minded?" >> I think there is plenty of evidence that John Paul II was *very* >> open-minded, he just also happened to reach different conclusions with >> his open mind than you have. > >Well then why don't you post some evidence instead of heaving insults. >Perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I understand the Pope stifled debate on >the subject of women in the clergy. And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:18:22 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 09:51 PM 4/5/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: Oh, and if you looked at the individual data points would evolution go directly from good to better to best? What is "good" in the context of evolution? Poor wording on my part. Measure of success increased linearly, maybe? Isn't the answer to the above: "by definition, yes?" O.k., maybe you could point to a few exceptions, like say the non-avian dinosaurs, but for the most part, I think that the above answer fits "Evolutionary dead ends are very common in the human fossil record. In fact, there are people who would claim that we probably don't know any direct ancestors to Homo sapiens in that record. But if the pattern of human evolution has been one of the production of new species and the selective extinction most species in the fossil record, then clearly many, many species that we know as fossils were evolutionary dead ends in the sense that they didn't give rise to descendent species." Ian Tattersall, Curator in the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: And of course, the startling conclusion from Doug's remarks is that the alternative to "backsliding" is a one-Party hegemony of the Democrats. More insults. Is that how they teach debate at Case Western or is it just a bad habit you picked up on the internet? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: Out of curiosity, why do you equate "open-minded" with "agrees with [you]"? Out of curiosity is it possible for you to carry on a debate without heaving insults? I think there is plenty of evidence that John Paul II was *very* open-minded, he just also happened to reach different conclusions with his open mind than you have. Well then why don't you post some evidence instead of heaving insults. Perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I understand the Pope stifled debate on the subject of women in the clergy. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
I believe that USA vs. England in 1775 and again in 1812 would both qualify as well? Perhaps. There's more mitigating circumstances, though. In 1775, while the US was independently pursuing war for a time, in the end the French alliance was important. In 1812 the British had much (MUCH) bigger fish to fry... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 06:08 PM 4/7/2005 -0400, Damon wrote: > >>Oddly enough, no, I don't think so. Historians who >>focus on the military stuff understand military >>affairs better and understand that wars are not _just_ >>decided by who has the bigger economy. Those who >>don't look at military stuff tend, in my opinion >>(Damon, for example, may disagree) to vastly underrate >>the role of contingency in military outcomes. > >Perfect example: France vs. Germany 1940. > >You might be able to make the same argument of Athens vs. Sparta... I believe that USA vs. England in 1775 and again in 1812 would both qualify as well? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
At 09:51 PM 4/5/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >Oh, and if you looked at the individual data points would evolution go >directly from good to better to best? What is "good" in the context of evolution? Isn't the answer to the above: "by definition, yes?" O.k., maybe you could point to a few exceptions, like say the non-avian dinosaurs, but for the most part, I think that the above answer fits John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 11:09 PM 4/3/2005 -0500, Doug wrote: >> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. > >Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? I'm >not asking a rhetorical question. I've never figured out how, on one hand, >better and worse are simply defined in terms of a given culture, and on the >other some things are better or worse. If you want to talk about evolution, >then, by definition, what survives is evolutionarily favored. And of course, the startling conclusion from Doug's remarks is that the alternative to "backsliding" is a one-Party hegemony of the Democrats. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 09:09 PM 4/2/2005 -0800, Dou wrote: >I hope they pick some one more open minded and progressive to succeed him. Out of curiosity, why do you equate "open-minded" with "agrees with [you]"? I think there is plenty of evidence that John Paul II was *very* open-minded, he just also happened to reach different conclusions with his open mind than you have. John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Erik wrote: * Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Dan wrote: >there is no empirical evidence for human rights. I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more Or perhaps you meant: #43 Doug Nickle Los Angeles Dodgers Age: 30 Height: 6-4 Weight: 210 lbs. Bats: Right Throws: Right Pos: RP Born: October 2, 1974, Sonoma, CA Full Name: Douglas Alan Nickle College: UC-Berkeley Experience: 3 years Heh, if I didn't spell check _almost_ all of my posts I could keep you amused full time. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Gautam wrote: Dan, just to be fair, not fortuitous, but not inevitable either. I think most (but not all) historians think that Northern victory was likely, given its resource advantage. I don't, actually, I think it was actually very unlikely, and I think that opinion is more common the more you're focused on the military, as opposed to the social, dynamics of the conflict. My old professor, William Gienapp, was pretty much where I was on the issue, thinking that it was a very, very near run thing indeed. Militarily the Union came very close to winning the war in June of 1862. Had it not been for the timidity of McClellan and abysmal intelligence, Richmond might have been taken at that time. Whether or not the Union won the Civil War, the institution of slavery in the South was living on borrowed time, IMO. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong? Nowhere to be found! Sheesh! Its not easy to joke about that when ones own mistakes caused a dog to lose it's tail in a horrible punctuation accident. Thats "one's," Erik. We're you just not paying attention when they tried to teach you about possessive's, conjunction's and plural's? You're insult's have know affect on me Davey but, Ill bet you a tit a pecker and, a Pen-singer that it's effecting you're karma? Thank you, Erik, for reminding me why I try not to be actively sipping drinks at the computer. Unlike someone else whose post I read earlier, I am *not* in need of a new keyboard Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan Minette wrote OK, I'll agree that I don't need any faith to state that I don't like to be hurt. ... but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human rights. I wrote > This does not make sense. If you don't like to be hurt -- if > you don't like the fact of someone else's `fist in your nose' -- > and if you figure that there are some people more powerful than > you, then you will want `freedom from' their hurtful actions. Dan Minette wrote Sure. But, if you don't have the power to do it, then what practical effect does wishing have? Well, the question is about a factual basis -- is there any factual basis for wishing? My argument is that there is: not that the wish will be successful, but that people did and do wish. > But factually, slaves did feel hurt and did revolt. And usually lost. Slave revolts in Rome ended with mass crucifixions to let slaves know that things actually could get worse. Right, they lost. My argument is that they had a basis for those revolts. They wished to be free. They lost the wish. But the wish did exist. > Only if you figure that you are and will be the strongest, or > belong to that group, does it make sense to come out against > others' human rights. Sure. If the Southern slave owners actually acknowledged the basic human rights of their slaves, wouldn't they have to admit they were morally obliged to release them? Yes. Wouldn't they lose the economic benefits of having subsistence workers do what they want? Yes. Are not both good factual bases for the slaves wanting human rights? I believe in human rights; I'm just arguing that they are not factually based. Someone wanting something doesn't make it a fact. Wanting something does not guarantee you will get it; but the act of desiring is a fact. I am saying that the act of the slaves wanting to avoid hurt was and is a fact. That their wishes were foiled does not mean they never had those wishes. You can have a wish without it being satisfied. And having a wish not to get hurt is a basis for ethics. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Oddly enough, no, I don't think so. Historians who focus on the military stuff understand military affairs better and understand that wars are not _just_ decided by who has the bigger economy. Those who don't look at military stuff tend, in my opinion (Damon, for example, may disagree) to vastly underrate the role of contingency in military outcomes. Perfect example: France vs. Germany 1940. You might be able to make the same argument of Athens vs. Sparta... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan Minette wrote: ... Out of curiosity, why would Weinburg have the same handicap? He stated that the lack of a "logical calculus" basis for morality was his greatest regret. That's one way to express the point I've been making with these arguments. Yes, it is a great pity that there is no more-or-less universally shared perception such as pleasure or pain which could be objectively measured and used as a basis of determining the morality of actions. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan, just to be fair, not fortuitous, but not > > inevitable either. I think most (but not all) > > historians think that Northern victory was likely, > > given its resource advantage. > > I included the fact that someone as talented as > Lincoln being elected as > part of the fortune, not simply a given. Yeah but some historians (Richard Hofstadter, for example) think that Lincoln's leadership wasn't that crucial to the victory - there are fewer of those than there were a generation ago, but they do exist. > Let me inquire about your indefinate specific. I'd > guess that the view > that the North was favored to win would be more > common if you focused on > the military and less common if you focused on the > social and diplomatic > dynamics. > > Dan M. Oddly enough, no, I don't think so. Historians who focus on the military stuff understand military affairs better and understand that wars are not _just_ decided by who has the bigger economy. Those who don't look at military stuff tend, in my opinion (Damon, for example, may disagree) to vastly underrate the role of contingency in military outcomes. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:32 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > Dan Minette wrote > > OK, I'll agree that I don't need any faith to state that I don't > like to be hurt. > > ... but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human > rights. > > This does not make sense. If you don't like to be hurt -- if you > don't like the fact of someone else's `fist in your nose' -- and if > you figure that there are some people more powerful than you, then you > will want `freedom from' their hurtful actions. Sure. But, if you don't have the power to do it, then what practical effect does wishing have? Slaves clearly wanted human rights. They still didn't exist in the Roman Empire and didn't exist for blacks in the US South before 1863-65. > Besides influencing people by talking, it benefits you to establish a > coercive means, a government, to help protect yourself. (You may not > be able to protect yourself; most slave revolts failed. But > factually, slaves did feel hurt and did revolt.) And usually lost. Slave revolts in Rome ended with mass crucifixions to let slaves know that things actually could get worse. > Only if you figure that you are and will be the strongest, or belong > to that group, does it make sense to come out against others' human > rights. Sure. If the Southern slave owners actually acknowledged the basic human rights of their slaves, wouldn't they have to admit they were morally obliged to release them? Wouldn't they lose the economic benefits of having subsistence workers do what they want? I believe in human rights; I'm just arguing that they are not factually based. Someone wanting something doesn't make it a fact. The existence of human rights because people believe in their own rights is no more factual than the existence of God is factual because people believe in God. I believe in both human rights and God, you may believe in the former and not the latter, I don't know. But, I realize that neither are facts. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Erik wrote: > > > Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? > > > > Because I did. :-) > > Wrong again, Dan. In your head doesn't count. OK, I thought I answered your main point when I answered the post. But, if you want a literal answer, someone who chose that goal would choose capitalism over communism, democracy over totalitarianism, and freedom over oppression. What has that got to do with an empirical basis for morality? It only has to do with techniques for implementing a goal once a goal has already been set. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong? Nowhere to be found! Sheesh! Its not easy to joke about that when ones own mistakes caused a dog to lose it's tail in a horrible punctuation accident. Thats "one's," Erik. We're you just not paying attention when they tried to teach you about possessive's, conjunction's and plural's? You're insult's have know affect on me Davey but, Ill bet you a tit a pecker and, a Pen-singer that it's effecting you're karma? Sometime's I let you get under my skin, but in this case, its all in fun. Slowly, but slowly, Im learning to take you with a grain of salt. Other time's I think you ought to go pound salt. Sometime's both. But when your in you're playful mode, you're message's add much to my enjoyment of this list. Dave "Never Davey" Land Havin Fun, But Seriously Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Erik wrote: > > Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? > > Because I did. :-) Wrong again, Dan. In your head doesn't count. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > >>And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong? > >>Nowhere to be found! Sheesh! > > > >Its not easy to joke about that when ones own mistakes caused a dog to > >lose it's tail in a horrible punctuation accident. > > Thats "one's," Erik. We're you just not paying attention when they tried > to teach you about possessive's, conjunction's and plural's? You're insult's have know affect on me Davey but, Ill bet you a tit a pecker and, a Pen-singer that it's effecting you're karma? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Sure, maybe the horse will learn to sing. : Much more likely than that. > A lot longer. But, that has nothing to do with the question at hand. You Wrong again, Dan. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan Minette wrote OK, I'll agree that I don't need any faith to state that I don't like to be hurt. ... but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human rights. This does not make sense. If you don't like to be hurt -- if you don't like the fact of someone else's `fist in your nose' -- and if you figure that there are some people more powerful than you, then you will want `freedom from' their hurtful actions. Besides influencing people by talking, it benefits you to establish a coercive means, a government, to help protect yourself. (You may not be able to protect yourself; most slave revolts failed. But factually, slaves did feel hurt and did revolt.) Only if you figure that you are and will be the strongest, or belong to that group, does it make sense to come out against others' human rights. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:00 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > A civilization with tremendous personal freedom and minimal physical > > wants is certainly a worthwhile goal. Being willing to work for it, > > even though you won't see it yourself > > I'm not so certain. Maybe a way to achieve near-immortality will be > developed in my lifetime. Maybe not, but my options are open. Sure, maybe the horse will learn to sing. :-) > > Many people would think those are good goals only as long as someone > > else is paying for them. > > Perhaps. If everyone acted that way, how long (if ever) would it take to > achieve those goals? A lot longer. But, that has nothing to do with the question at hand. You cannot control everyone, just your own behavior. So, with enlightened self interest as the yardstick, one should only calculate the effects of one's own choices, not the hypothetical assumption that everyone would choose the same way. (One should be free to include the influence one's choice has on others, of course.) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong? Nowhere to be found! Sheesh! Its not easy to joke about that when ones own mistakes caused a dog to lose it's tail in a horrible punctuation accident. Thats "one's," Erik. We're you just not paying attention when they tried to teach you about possessive's, conjunction's and plural's? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:57 AM > > Subject: Re: New Pope? > > > > > > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing > > > > that he misquoted them? > > > > > > I'm not arguing anything. I stated (again, this has come up from you > > > before and I responded before) that you were wrong about history being > > > the only way to settle the question. > > > > OK, history was only one of two arguments that I recall you making. I'm > > pretty sure that you did argue for something very much like the > > inevitability of the triumph of free societies due to their inherent > > superiority. But, if you now drop that argument, that's fine. > > Dan, Dan, Dan. Do you not even realize any more when you make these > faulty assumptions? Have you progressed from unconscious religious > rationalizations to unconscious unquestioned assumptions? > > > The other argument I recall is that acts that look unselfish are > > actually in one's own self interest. The one we spent some time on > > was a case of a man who went through a smoke filled apartment building > > knocking on his neighbors' doors to warn them to get out. IIRC, you > > argued that was an act of self interest because that would increase > > the likelihood of them saving him in some future apartment fire. > > A [sharp] mind is a horrible thing [for a religion] to waste. > > > Then there is the obvious option that you were being deliberately > > obtuse about your points so that you can claim your opponent is just > > dense. > > Or it could be that I think it is a waste of time to have the same > discussions with a religiously-handicapped person over and over without > that person even noticing the repetition, so I have been reduced to > just briefly pointing out the repeated mistakes, hoping it may someday > encourage some assumption questioning. (the eternal optimist, I guess). Out of curiosity, why would Weinburg have the same handicap? He stated that the lack of a "logical calculus" basis for morality was his greatest regret. That's one way to express the point I've been making with these arguements. > > Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? Because I did. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > A civilization with tremendous personal freedom and minimal physical > wants is certainly a worthwhile goal. Being willing to work for it, > even though you won't see it yourself I'm not so certain. Maybe a way to achieve near-immortality will be developed in my lifetime. Maybe not, but my options are open. > Many people would think those are good goals only as long as someone > else is paying for them. Perhaps. If everyone acted that way, how long (if ever) would it take to achieve those goals? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: New Pope? > > > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing > > > that he misquoted them? > > > > I'm not arguing anything. I stated (again, this has come up from you > > before and I responded before) that you were wrong about history being > > the only way to settle the question. > > OK, history was only one of two arguments that I recall you making. I'm > pretty sure that you did argue for something very much like the > inevitability of the triumph of free societies due to their inherent > superiority. But, if you now drop that argument, that's fine. Dan, Dan, Dan. Do you not even realize any more when you make these faulty assumptions? Have you progressed from unconscious religious rationalizations to unconscious unquestioned assumptions? > The other argument I recall is that acts that look unselfish are > actually in one's own self interest. The one we spent some time on > was a case of a man who went through a smoke filled apartment building > knocking on his neighbors' doors to warn them to get out. IIRC, you > argued that was an act of self interest because that would increase > the likelihood of them saving him in some future apartment fire. A [sharp] mind is a horrible thing [for a religion] to waste. > Then there is the obvious option that you were being deliberately > obtuse about your points so that you can claim your opponent is just > dense. Or it could be that I think it is a waste of time to have the same discussions with a religiously-handicapped person over and over without that person even noticing the repetition, so I have been reduced to just briefly pointing out the repeated mistakes, hoping it may someday encourage some assumption questioning. (the eternal optimist, I guess). > differ in this in that I always try to be as clear as possible and > consider it my responsibility in a reasoned debate to make my points > as clear as I can. That's only true if you didn't choose religion but were involuntarily infected by it. Which I suppose may be the case. > If there is a third way you've argued, that I've not seen distinctly, > I think it would be worth stating explicitly. Why didn't you respond to the questions I posted last night? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:58 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > there is no empirical evidence for human rights. Holding truths to be > > self-evident indicates that the founding fathers believed this too. > > It makes sense, because that understanding was very much a part of the > > enlightenment. > > I think many people would more-or-less agree with me that a > civilization/society similar to Iain Banks' Culture is a worthwhile goal > for the human race to aspire to. A civilization with tremendous personal freedom and minimal physical wants is certainly a worthwhile goal. Being willing to work for it, even though you won't see it yourself is noble. So, I appreciate your arguement for future generations as basically selfless and morally admirable points. We might differ as to the best path, but I respect your dedication. Many people would think those are good goals only as long as someone else is paying for them. I'm talking, though, about something more fundamental. I value those goals because I believe in the inherent worth of humans. But, there is no scientific reason that those goals are noble, while those who are willing to spend now and leave the bill to other people's children are ignoble. The yardstick I use to measure that is the the value of every person, including those who will come in the future. That yardstick is a "self evident truth." It is not a fact; it is not a part of a well verified model of observation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing > > that he misquoted them? > > I'm not arguing anything. I stated (again, this has come up from you > before and I responded before) that you were wrong about history being > the only way to settle the question. OK, history was only one of two arguments that I recall you making. I'm pretty sure that you did argue for something very much like the inevitability of the triumph of free societies due to their inherent superiority. But, if you now drop that argument, that's fine. The other argument I recall is that acts that look unselfish are actually in one's own self interest. The one we spent some time on was a case of a man who went through a smoke filled apartment building knocking on his neighbors' doors to warn them to get out. IIRC, you argued that was an act of self interest because that would increase the likelihood of them saving him in some future apartment fire. I stumbled across some statistics a few months ago, so if you want to reopen the debate on this issue that's fine. Then there is the obvious option that you were being deliberately obtuse about your points so that you can claim your opponent is just dense. We differ in this in that I always try to be as clear as possible and consider it my responsibility in a reasoned debate to make my points as clear as I can. If there is a third way you've argued, that I've not seen distinctly, I think it would be worth stating explicitly. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me focus things down to one question. According > > to Gautam, one of our > > resident Civil War buffs, the consensus among > > historians is that the > > victory by the North in the Civil War was very > > fortuitous. It was not > > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? > > Are you arguing that he > > misquoted them? > > > > While the consensus of historians can be wrong, it > > should at least be taken > > seriously. > > > > Dan M. > > Dan, just to be fair, not fortuitous, but not > inevitable either. I think most (but not all) > historians think that Northern victory was likely, > given its resource advantage. I included the fact that someone as talented as Lincoln being elected as part of the fortune, not simply a given. >I don't, actually, I > think it was actually very unlikely, and I think that > opinion is more common the more you're focused on the > military, as opposed to the social, dynamics of the > conflict. Let me inquire about your indefinate specific. I'd guess that the view that the North was favored to win would be more common if you focused on the military and less common if you focused on the social and diplomatic dynamics. Dan M. My old professor, William Gienapp, was > pretty much where I was on the issue, thinking that it > was a very, very near run thing indeed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let me focus things down to one question. According > to Gautam, one of our > resident Civil War buffs, the consensus among > historians is that the > victory by the North in the Civil War was very > fortuitous. It was not > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? > Are you arguing that he > misquoted them? > > While the consensus of historians can be wrong, it > should at least be taken > seriously. > > Dan M. Dan, just to be fair, not fortuitous, but not inevitable either. I think most (but not all) historians think that Northern victory was likely, given its resource advantage. I don't, actually, I think it was actually very unlikely, and I think that opinion is more common the more you're focused on the military, as opposed to the social, dynamics of the conflict. My old professor, William Gienapp, was pretty much where I was on the issue, thinking that it was a very, very near run thing indeed. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong? > Nowhere to be found! Sheesh! Its not easy to joke about that when ones own mistakes caused a dog to lose it's tail in a horrible punctuation accident. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing > that he misquoted them? I'm not arguing anything. I stated (again, this has come up from you before and I responded before) that you were wrong about history being the only way to settle the question. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan wrote:
there is no empirical evidence for human rights.
I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more
successful strategy than the lack therof.
Well, all we have is history to judge this q
Wrong again, Dan. You keep writing that, but repeating it will not make
it true.
Doug:
Nickle \Nic"kle\, n. (Zool.)
The European woodpecker, or yaffle; -- called also {nicker
pecker}.
[1913 Webster]
Good bet!
And where are you whenever someone gets the "its/it's" thing wrong?
Nowhere to be found! Sheesh!
Julia
p.s. thanks for the "nickle" definition!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Dan wrote: > > > > > > > there is no empirical evidence for human rights. > > > > > > I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more > > > successful strategy than the lack therof. > > > > Well, all we have is history to judge this q > > Wrong again, Dan. You keep writing that, but repeating it will not make > it true. Let me focus things down to one question. According to Gautam, one of our resident Civil War buffs, the consensus among historians is that the victory by the North in the Civil War was very fortuitous. It was not inevitable. Are you arguing that they are wrong? Are you arguing that he misquoted them? While the consensus of historians can be wrong, it should at least be taken seriously. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dan wrote: > > >there is no empirical evidence for human rights. > > I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more Or perhaps you meant: #43 Doug Nickle Los Angeles Dodgers Age: 30 Height: 6-4 Weight: 210 lbs. Bats: Right Throws: Right Pos: RP Born: October 2, 1974, Sonoma, CA Full Name: Douglas Alan Nickle College: UC-Berkeley Experience: 3 years -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> > > there is no empirical evidence for human rights.
> >
> > I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more
> > successful strategy than the lack therof.
>
> Well, all we have is history to judge this q
Wrong again, Dan. You keep writing that, but repeating it will not make
it true.
Doug:
Nickle \Nic"kle\, n. (Zool.)
The European woodpecker, or yaffle; -- called also {nicker
pecker}.
[1913 Webster]
Good bet!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? Um, what? I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than "truth", because you used the term "believe in". No, "self-evident truths" definately qualify in my mind. Thus, I'd argue that secular humanists who believe in human rights act on faith, because there is no empirical evidence for human rights. Holding truths to be self-evident indicates that the founding fathers believed this too. It makes sense, because that understanding was very much a part of the enlightenment. But I don't buy the "self-evident truths" argument either. The entire phrase describing people being created equal, endowed by their creator, etc., etc., just isn't a strong argument for me because it falls back on deity. People are *not* equal. If we were I could be on an NBA team. I can't. Why? Because I can't do everything an NBA star can. Therefore we're not equal. What I think we should promote is the idea of equality of opportunity, to the extent that it's reasonable to pursue -- that is, I maybe should be free to try out for an NBA team, but hopefully I've got the wisdom to understand that doing so would waste the time of everyone involved -- but no fuzzy-headed ideas of universal equality, which simply cannot exist. That's good, really. As a supervillain pointed out recently, once everyone's super, no one will be. By extension, then, we don't -- or should not -- do those things to others, because they are ethically bankrupt actions. I agree we shouldn't; but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human rights. I agree. The entire idea of human rights is a legal fiction that was invented, several times in history in various ways, and that has been enumerated in our own founding documents, with other nations doing the same thing in the most recent (~200 years) cycle of liberal humanism. I certainly have faith that they exist, but I realize that they are not objective, measureable quantities. They are not required parts of well verified theories. They're not even required parts of well ordered societies, as you indicate. All it takes is a little empathy to understand how the victim must feel in those situations. I wouldn't like anyone doing anything like that to anyone I know, so it's clear to me that those are behaviors I should not do unto others. ;) If that's all it takes, then why have so many people hurt others? That's a question for the ages, isn't it? Possibly because, it seems to me, there are priorities to human existence, on an individual level. Maybe I could prioritize the list (as I see it) thus: 1. Personal survival/security 2. Family survival/security 3. In-group survival/security To the extent that the first need is met, the second can then be considered; when the second is met, the third can then be dealt with. To the above I'd add education, learning, indulging curiosity, creation of art. etc. as items that can work in conjunction with the foregoing, but *only after the basic survival needs are met first*. Since the rather abstract idea of "human rights" requires philosophy, which requires some leisure time to develop, maybe it's not too surprising that, since a lot of human history has been stuck in meeting needs 2 and 3, we haven't seen so much of the extension of humanness to out-groups, the assignment of human rights to others, etc. In order to extend compassion, it might be argued that one has to be able to get out of survival mode first. Did I explain that in a useful way, or is my thinking on this still unclear? On a somewhat more general level, social breakdowns do happen, and again, they don't have to be judged against some kind of phantom "truth" to be seen as bad things. Hitler was just plain evil, and what he and the Nazis perpetrated was an atrocity. There's no reason to pull a deity or "truth" into the courtroom to indict him and his cohort. Are you arguing that good and evil are observables, like mass or velocity? Not exactly, no, but when you extend the earlier criteria -- I don't want anyone to rob me, so I won't rob anyone else -- to general behavior, we might be able to come across a provisional definition of actions that can be seen as good or evil. Can something that is socially acceptable be evil? Yes. The socially sanctioned murder of ~6,000,000 Jews by the Nazis, for instance. What about large, long-lasting civilizations that did not have a concept of human rights? What of them? Civilizations' duration is not the sole measure by which one can judge their ethical merits. Also, can you enumerate these civilizations? Perhaps I'm not perceiving history in the same way as
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:38 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > Dan wrote: > > > there is no empirical evidence for human rights. > > I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more > successful strategy than the lack therof. Well, all we have is history to judge this q >Any study that showed that well treated, contented people were more productive than ill treated > malcontents would do it. But, that's only part of the equation. The Roman empire lasted for centuries without the concept of human rights. Indeed, Augustine had to argue that it was _possible_ for someone with Christian morals to govern a state. The triumph of the West over Communism wasn't inevitable. Indeed, if FDR didn't (accidentally or on purpose) push Japan into war with the cutoff of oil, it's not clear that the US would have gotten sufficiently involved. If the Republicans didn't nominate a singular genius who was opposed to slavery for President, but just a very good campaigner who was equally opposed to slavery, then the question of "whether this country or any country so conceived" would survive might very well be answered in the negative. What I think you would have to show is not just that economic systems of free people tend to be more efficient than economic systems with oppression, but that in struggles between such systems, the outcome heavily favors the democracy. In the long term, I think you can make the argument that there are advantages afforded liberal democracies. But, one can also point to the tremors problems liberal democracies have for the first four score years or so. I'd welcome a detailed discussion of the question of whether the triumph of liberal democracies was/is inevitable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan wrote: there is no empirical evidence for human rights. I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more successful strategy than the lack therof. Any study that showed that well treated, contented people were more productive than ill treated malcontents would do it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > there is no empirical evidence for human rights. Holding truths to be > self-evident indicates that the founding fathers believed this too. > It makes sense, because that understanding was very much a part of the > enlightenment. I think many people would more-or-less agree with me that a civilization/society similar to Iain Banks' Culture is a worthwhile goal for the human race to aspire to. What do you think is the most likely and efficient way to get there from here? Capitalism or communism? Democracy or totalitarianism? Freedom or oppression? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:31 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > Dan Minette wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:05 PM > > Subject: Re: New Pope? > > > > > > > >>On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> > >> > >>>From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>>>Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. > >>> > >>>Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? > >> > >>Um, what? > >> > >>I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than "truth", > >>because you used the term "believe in". > > > > > > No, "self-evident truths" definately qualify in my mind. Thus, I'd argue > > that secular humanists who believe in human rights act on faith, because there is no empirical evidence for human rights. Holding truths to be self-evident indicates that the founding fathers believed this too. It makes sense, because that understanding was very much a part of the enlightenment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:05 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? Um, what? I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than "truth", because you used the term "believe in". No, "self-evident truths" definately qualify in my mind. Thus, I'd argue that secular humanists who believe in human rights act on faith, because Because what? (You patched up the other hanging thought I found near this one already.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Ronn! wrote: Is it reflected in a statistically significant decline in immigration rates? I've read recently that it was, in fact, but I don't have a cite. It was an article about how fewere professionals and students were electing to come here. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
> Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have mixed feelings about John Paul II's tenure. > He certainly was a > major factor in the liberation of Eastern Europe, I > agree with the > church's stance on the death penalty and I applauded > him for opposing the > current debacle in Iraq. On the other hand I found > his medieval (just an > expression Damon 8^) ) approach to women’s issues > and especially birth control to be repugnant. Agree WRT Solidarity (forgot how the Poles spell it) and women's issues; I was, however, pleased that he chose _not_ to return to the hospital when it was clear that his multiple illnesses were terminal. Prolonging death is not equivalent to extending life, and while a bit of suffering can be instructive, futile pain is pointless. Debbi Gravity And Distance Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:05 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. > > > > Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? > > Um, what? > > I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than "truth", > because you used the term "believe in". No, "self-evident truths" definately qualify in my mind. Thus, I'd argue that secular humanists who believe in human rights act on faith, because > You don't have to believe in a god to know that if someone robs you, it > sucks. If someone molests your granddaughter, you want to feed him his > genitals. If someone kills your best friend, or you, it's awful. > > I don't see how you have to fall back on phantoms for any of the > foregoing to be obvious. OK, I'll agree that I don't need any faith to state that I don't like to be hurt. > By extension, then, we don't -- or should not -- do those things to > others, because they are ethically bankrupt actions. I agree we shouldn't; but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human rights. I certainly have faith that they exist, but I realize that they are not objective, measureable quantities. They are not required parts of well verified theories. >All it takes is a > little empathy to understand how the victim must feel in those > situations. I wouldn't like anyone doing anything like that to anyone I > know, so it's clear to me that those are behaviors I should not do unto > others. ;) If that's all it takes, then why have so many people hurt others? Why was slavery in the US so wide spread. Why did some Native American tribes call themselves the only humans? Why did the Germans go along with the Holocaust. > Again, why does there have to be a "belief" in "truth" for the above to > be so? > On a somewhat more general level, social breakdowns do happen, and > again, they don't have to be judged against some kind of phantom > "truth" to be seen as bad things. Hitler was just plain evil, and what > he and the Nazis perpetrated was an atrocity. There's no reason to pull > a deity or "truth" into the courtroom to indict him and his cohort. Are you arguing that good and evil are observables, like mass or velocity? Can something that is socially acceptable be evil? What about large, long-lasting civilizations that did not have a concept of human rights? If you want to argue that one needs no phantoms, then it would help to be able to point to a scientific measurement of good and bad, not just labels. Show how experimental results would be different if good and bad were different. > Evolution taught in classrooms may be "just a theory" (which by the way > is incorrect; evolution is a fact) But evolution is a theory, not a fact. Evolution is no more a fact than universal gravitation is. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 11:51 PM Tuesday 4/5/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: Dan wrote: I realize that a president neither you nor I voted for is in office. But, I believe in standards that are superior to "Dan likes" or "Doug likes." Besides Bush's actions are not your druthers, what basis can you use to say we've gone backwards over the last four years. I'm way to tired to do your post justice, but let me just say that I think that Bush has jepordized the very foundation of our nation; our meme. People the world over wanted to come here or barring that they wanted to emulate us and I feel that that has changed completely. Is it reflected in a statistically significant decline in immigration rates? --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan wrote: I realize that a president neither you nor I voted for is in office. But, I believe in standards that are superior to "Dan likes" or "Doug likes." Besides Bush's actions are not your druthers, what basis can you use to say we've gone backwards over the last four years. I'm way to tired to do your post justice, but let me just say that I think that Bush has jepordized the very foundation of our nation; our meme. People the world over wanted to come here or barring that they wanted to emulate us and I feel that that has changed completely. I have a hard time reconciling this with your posts that indicate that you do not feel that faith is needed for ethics. You're wrong that I don't have faith. My faith is in humanity, not in the imaginary. Oh, and if you looked at the individual data points would evolution go directly from good to better to best? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 11:39 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > Dan wrote: > > >> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. > > > > Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? > > huh? Well, I guess that _was_ a bit of a jump on my part, but I've been mulling over things you've said for a while, and I don't see how several things fit together. One of the things we've kicked back and forth was whether or not we need to posit some points as self-evident. I've argued for it, you've argued for things being explainable in terms of that which is evolutionarily favored. Given that criterion, how can there be backsliding. In evolution, there is no better or worse, good or bad, simply favored under a given set of circumstances. If one were to look at current events, one were > I was thinking mostly in terms of the last four years or so, not really on > an evolutionary time scale. I realize that a president neither you nor I voted for is in office. But, I believe in standards that are superior to "Dan likes" or "Doug likes." Besides Bush's actions are not your druthers, what basis can you use to say we've gone backwards over the last four years. As I've mentioned many times, I take the faith statements in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." as corollaries to an axiom I take on faith "we are created in God's image." As I also mentioned many times, I consider those who simply take human rights as axioms fellow travelers who I can have a pleasant arm waving theological discussion with over beers, not someone on the other side. >From many of your posts, I get the feeling that you do believe in human rights. Yet, you seem to argue that you do not see faith needed for an ethical society. So, when you write about backsliding, which implies a standard against which even cultures that have lasted a long time can be measured and found wanting, I have a hard time reconciling this with your posts that indicate that you do not feel that faith is needed for ethics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? Um, what? I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than "truth", because you used the term "believe in". You don't have to believe in a god to know that if someone robs you, it sucks. If someone molests your granddaughter, you want to feed him his genitals. If someone kills your best friend, or you, it's awful. I don't see how you have to fall back on phantoms for any of the foregoing to be obvious. By extension, then, we don't -- or should not -- do those things to others, because they are ethically bankrupt actions. All it takes is a little empathy to understand how the victim must feel in those situations. I wouldn't like anyone doing anything like that to anyone I know, so it's clear to me that those are behaviors I should not do unto others. ;) Again, why does there have to be a "belief" in "truth" for the above to be so? On a somewhat more general level, social breakdowns do happen, and again, they don't have to be judged against some kind of phantom "truth" to be seen as bad things. Hitler was just plain evil, and what he and the Nazis perpetrated was an atrocity. There's no reason to pull a deity or "truth" into the courtroom to indict him and his cohort. This nation is slipping -- or at least parts of it are -- into an anti-intellectual morass of just-so mysticism heavily rooted in a very narrow interpretation of *one* eclectic, eccentric religious tome. Evolution taught in classrooms may be "just a theory" (which by the way is incorrect; evolution is a fact), but "intelligent design" isn't even that, and yet it's supposed to get equal time? IMAX movies can't show a film detailing current models about Earth's development -- incidentally mentioning the fact of evolution -- because of right-wing fundamentalist outcry? The US congress, in a blatant violation of separation of powers, attempts to meddle with decisions that have been reaffirmed for nearly a decade by state and federal courts, all in the name of keeping a hunk of meat warm? I don't see any need to revert to superstition to judge that *all* the foregoing are indications of problems. There's no need to "believe" in a "truth" to know that there's trouble afoot. That said, I suspect Doug was being tongue-in-cheek, as I was. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 11:24 PM Sunday 4/3/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "JOHN GIORGIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > I don't know what source Dan is using to call a Nigerian and > a Brazilian the "leading candidates" - but I would point out > that there is an old Roman saying, "he who enters the > conclave a Pope leaves the conclave a cardinal." I don't > put much stock in "frontrunners" as if there is some kind > of "horserace" going on > I'm sure that there is a lot of talk about the "politics" of > picking a new Pope, but it is important to remember that the > Conclave strives to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit in > picking the next Pope. Striving to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit doesn't stop them from being human. The church is both of the world and of the spirit. The cardinals bring different discernments to the table; and the process they go through is inherently political. That doesn't stop them from acting faithfully to how they understand they are called by the Holy Spirit. But, the actions of the conclave of cardinals is, as you said, hard to predict. In a real sense, individual front runners merely represent the types of choices that the cardinals can make. They can decide that a pope who has a direct understanding and relations with the Third World is most important, or will the Europeans feel that the traditions of the church call them to vote for an Italian. Will they feel that the church needs a caretaker, or will they worry about a pope in his mid-seventies falling ill soon...and then being incapacitated for years?For, even granting that they are inspired (I'd be very surprised if they were not seeking a spirit of discernment), it will still be humans making the decision...with all the limitations inherent in humans. I was raised in a home with folks who were very involved in church politics. All the people who were involved were faithful Catholics. My uncle was a missionary and pushed hard for Vatican II changes even before Vatican II. My mother's uncle, Fr. Mike, was chancellor of the St. Cloud diocese. Later, my mother's uncle, Fr. Al, was Vicar General. Our own family's lives revolved around my parents involvement with the church. My family knew bishops as old family friends. So, I grew up never questioning whether the natural political nature of human activities and an honest seeking of God's will could coexist. From the examples I had before me, it was obvious that the did. Dan M. Sounds like the piece on the topic on last night's _60 Minutes_ . . . --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan wrote: Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? huh? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I've never figured out how, on one hand, better and worse are simply defined in terms of a given culture, and on the other some things are better or worse. If you want to talk about evolution, then, by definition, what survives is evolutionarily favored. If one were to look at the present situation from an evolutionary standpoint, the question would be why Europe is failing, not why the US is backsliding. I was thinking mostly in terms of the last four years or so, not really on an evolutionary time scale. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "JOHN GIORGIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > I don't know what source Dan is using to call a Nigerian and > a Brazilian the "leading candidates" - but I would point out > that there is an old Roman saying, "he who enters the > conclave a Pope leaves the conclave a cardinal." I don't > put much stock in "frontrunners" as if there is some kind > of "horserace" going on > I'm sure that there is a lot of talk about the "politics" of > picking a new Pope, but it is important to remember that the > Conclave strives to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit in > picking the next Pope. Striving to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit doesn't stop them from being human. The church is both of the world and of the spirit. The cardinals bring different discernments to the table; and the process they go through is inherently political. That doesn't stop them from acting faithfully to how they understand they are called by the Holy Spirit. But, the actions of the conclave of cardinals is, as you said, hard to predict. In a real sense, individual front runners merely represent the types of choices that the cardinals can make. They can decide that a pope who has a direct understanding and relations with the Third World is most important, or will the Europeans feel that the traditions of the church call them to vote for an Italian. Will they feel that the church needs a caretaker, or will they worry about a pope in his mid-seventies falling ill soon...and then being incapacitated for years?For, even granting that they are inspired (I'd be very surprised if they were not seeking a spirit of discernment), it will still be humans making the decision...with all the limitations inherent in humans. I was raised in a home with folks who were very involved in church politics. All the people who were involved were faithful Catholics. My uncle was a missionary and pushed hard for Vatican II changes even before Vatican II. My mother's uncle, Fr. Mike, was chancellor of the St. Cloud diocese. Later, my mother's uncle, Fr. Al, was Vicar General. Our own family's lives revolved around my parents involvement with the church. My family knew bishops as old family friends. So, I grew up never questioning whether the natural political nature of human activities and an honest seeking of God's will could coexist. From the examples I had before me, it was obvious that the did. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 11:04 PM Subject: Re: New Pope? > > Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I've never figured out how, on one hand, better and worse are simply defined in terms of a given culture, and on the other some things are better or worse. If you want to talk about evolution, then, by definition, what survives is evolutionarily favored. If one were to look at the present situation from an evolutionary standpoint, the question would be why Europe is failing, not why the US is backsliding. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 22:29:59 -0700, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 2, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: I don't imagine I'd give a damn about what the Catholic Church and their pope did except for the inordinate influence they have over so much of the developing world. Meaning, of course, the USA. Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. -- Doug Deteriorating, regressing, declining, withering maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Original message >Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:42:39 -0600 >From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: New Pope? >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > >The leading candiates are a Nigerian and a Brazilian. I would rate the >odds of an American as 1000 to 1. So, Alberto may be able to use his ties >to the new Pope to influence JDG in the future. :-) I don't know what source Dan is using to call a Nigerian and a Brazilian the "leading candidates" - but I would point out that there is an old Roman saying, "he who enters the conclave a Pope leaves the conclave a cardinal." I don't put much stock in "frontrunners" as if there is some kind of "horserace" going on I'm sure that there is a lot of talk about the "politics" of picking a new Pope, but it is important to remember that the Conclave strives to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit in picking the next Pope. John D. - "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done..." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
Dan Minette wrote: > > The leading candiates are a Nigerian and a Brazilian. I would rate the > odds of an American as 1000 to 1. So, Alberto may be able to use his ties > to the new Pope to influence JDG in the future. :-) > I think it depends on whether they want to gain or to prevent losses. Brazil may be the biggest loss to Catholicism since the Reform: we are quickly becoming a Protestant country. OTOH, the USA could be a huge gain, with the influence of the Mexican immigrants. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Dan Minette wrote: > The leading candiates are a Nigerian and a Brazilian. I would rate the > odds of an American as 1000 to 1. So, Alberto may be able to use his > ties to the new Pope to influence JDG in the future. :-) Unless the new pope is Nigerian, which is how I'd be leaning if I cared that much. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 2, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: I don't imagine I'd give a damn about what the Catholic Church and their pope did except for the inordinate influence they have over so much of the developing world. Meaning, of course, the USA. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
I have mixed feelings about John Paul II's tenure. He certainly was a major factor in the liberation of Eastern Europe, I agree with the church's stance on the death penalty and I applauded him for opposing the current debacle in Iraq. On the other hand I found his medieval (just an expression Damon 8^) ) approach to womenâs issues and especially birth control to be repugnant. I don't imagine I'd give a damn about what the Catholic Church and their pope did except for the inordinate influence they have over so much of the developing world. I hope they pick some one more open minded and progressive to succeed him. -- Doug Not Holding My Breath Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
In a message dated 4/2/2005 9:05:17 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm holding out for a woman this time. Stop holding it out and put it back. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 2, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Dan Minette wrote: The leading candiates are a Nigerian and a Brazilian. I would rate the odds of an American as 1000 to 1. So, Alberto may be able to use his ties to the new Pope to influence JDG in the future. :-) I'm holding out for a woman this time. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
