Len,

>>Even mine? <g>
>
>Yes - very eloquently put. I do draw the line at threatening people's lives though (you may or may not have been doing so, but that's the way it came across).

No.. That's the way you took it. You see, all I did was apply what I learned to your attitude towards these issues. Yes, I deliberately did so and now that we are discussing it I will certainly 'fess up. <g> I yanked your chain hard and it worked. It worked because I know how you think. I know how you think because I used to think that way. As such I know the errors of your thought process and in the process of yanking your chain I hope I made my point. You became, from what I could tell, furious. Hmmm.. Not much pacifism there... <g>

Now I need to point out the next issue I would think you should be made aware of. It might be painful but please understand that I so do with the full knowledge of having learned what I'm goinf to explain to you though a certain amount of pain.

When you responded in the other message where you used an epithat you actually did that which you profess to not do.

1) You moralized and in so doing you proclaimed me as 'bad' - in your judgement. However, in order for anyone to do this they must first be convinced that they are 'good', which may or may not be accurate in an objective sense. Additionally, your remark contained the same kind of attitude that leads to wars, fightings and so forth. It's the "I'm better than you to the point that I can condemn you" thought process.

Now, please understand that I have not taken your remarks personally. However, I think what got under your skin was that I was so close to the truth and it does 'hurt' to have that happen. I would very much encourage you to re-examine what I said and think about it a little. I am quite convinced that it might be beneficial to you.

>
>Obviously something in your life happened to change your point of view, maybe that will happen to me one day, & I will have to make a fundamental reassessment of my beliefs. Maybe then, I will be more in agreement with you, maybe not, but I do believe that people should stay true to their own beliefs, regardless of the prevailing situation. (That is not to say there are not times when it is necessary to review those beliefs).

Well, it's not really necessary to have to wait for something really tragic to happen to change your point of view. All that I've ever seen that was needed was for someone to commit to the truth, even at their own expense. I have made far more mistakes with knowledge of what I was doing than without. The 'trick' is getting to where you care more for the truth than protecting your ego. We all make mistakes. It's pretty easy to see who has learned this lesson in life Len. Those who haven't and are still self-centered are usually the most critical (angry, name calling mad) as they see so many of their own sins on others. <g> We all do it to some degree or another... So, let's quit the pretenses and learn to be honest, as painful as it can be at time, starting with ourselves. Tough life experiences tend to force us onto this path so that may indeed be the difference between us.

>
>I do not believe that man is intrinsically good or evil, they are both subjective terms that can be twisted to suit the individual or group of individuals. Not believing in a god, or any sort of after life, I believe that we've got one shot at living a good life, no possibility of redemption.

Well, we disagree here. No one can honestly intellectually assert 'good' or 'bad' without first presuming (perhaps unconsciously) that there does indeed exist at some point in time an absolute of some sort in order to be able to come to a determination of some sort. Otherwise an assertin of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' is totally gratuitous and of no value whatsoever. If the entire world is subjective then lying, stealin and murdering is perfectly acceptable.

That's why many people think that the pacifist's approach is really nothing more than surrender as all too often the pacifist is claiming some sort of moral superiority on the basis of the elimination of standards. If something is 'right' and you as an individual are committed to doing that which is 'right' then you need to stand up for that which is 'right'. That is not taking the path of avoidance and claiming that avoidance is engagement.