moralist

That would depend on what you mean by supernatural. That means a great many different things to different people. So I'll be more specific: Something greater than us to which we are morally accountable... regardless of what we believe or don't believe. And if you think I believe, then the answer is no. I don't believe. I know.

That doesn't define a Christian. That could be a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Muslim or any other number of religions.

It is a hypothetical which others believe exists. I just don't. Many people equate humans with animals and use animal behavior as a model for human behavior. Yes. Yes... except it is more like following a design rather than creating a design. Every event carries with it the seeds of future events which will unfold from it. People have the rational ability to consider the potential of those seeds and to make choices before they sprout. If our lives were novels, that phenomenon would be known as foreshadowing. No. This ability is peculiar to humans.

No, it's just a hypothetical that doesn't exist. I only referenced it as a comparison to the reality that we do have volition.

It's becoming clear how we are each able to hold a completly opposite view of the same issue. It is because we each respond to it in opposite ways. The difference is caused by the fact that I convert what you regard as as immoral and unjust into a useful tool just by being productive. My suggestion offered for your consideration is that if you were to alter your own response, you would cease to be a victim of injustice. It is our own behavior which grants our sanction to become a victim.

Yes. And consider the alternative. Do you think that humanity would be better off if we had no volition? Animals have no volition.

Being a behaviorist, I'm much less concerned with the origin of a right than I am with the fact of it's existence. Every right implies a responsibility necessary for it's enjoyment. It's our behavior which makes the world what it is... and not our intentions or beliefs.

I was notified that it was deemed unfit for this forum.

Oh, you meant depraved, and not deprived. Ok, now I get your meaning. The answer would be no. Not every thought is automatically depraved, irrational, or immoral... however, if we acted on every thought, it would include acting on all of the thoughts that were depraved, irrational, and immoral. Yes. My point is that it's for our own good that we have the ability to choose to act contrary to our thoughts. And that ability to override thought arises from the fact that we can observe thoughts from the point of view as if we are not the thinker of those thoughts. No offense taken, Tad. It's likely that I don't believe in what you define as "Christian" any more than you do.

Could you explain what you mean by thought being "automatically deprived"? I just want to be clear on exactly what you mean before I respond. Thanks.

There you go. Spot on. The price of gasoline is already at a fairly high level and has been creeping up again. People just get used to it being high. When irresponsible people claim that economic actions have no consequences... what they are really saying is that they believe the same fallacy applies to them personally... that their own actions do not have consequences.

No. That's wrong. If you begin with that flawed premise you can only end up with flawed conclusions. A woman is morally good... a female is not. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that thinking rationally and obectively is what distinguishes a woman from a female. Again... "Morally good females" is a term you made up. I have never used that. Only you do... and that is why the conclusions at which you arrive are flawed. I'm saying that women are far more rare than females. And in contrast, males who think like females are as common as dirt. I hope you see how you change what I actually say. For example, you just said: "Women are inferior thinkers to men." I never say that... only you say that. I say that females are inferior thinkers to men, and that females and males think in a similar manner because they both failed in a similar manner to grow into men and women.

I'm aware of that... and I'm also aware of her clear statement of one fundamental right.

Yes. Depressions and recessions are always the inevitable consequence of debt binging: The return to the reality of Capital from the fantasy of credit. This is good, not bad. But for the addicts hooked on the debt based economy, going cold turkey is a self inflicted living hell. Well, that was my point: The assumption that economic actions are somehow magically free of economic consequences. And the only way to avoid getting whipsawed by the wild swings of economic cycles is to operate free of the need for debt. Even though it's the tortoise in the race... it always finishes.

*** Mod's note: Moved from "Rand Paul" thread. - sN *** I understand. It was only a reminder that abortion is anti-choice from the point of view of the child. "There is only one fundamental right... a man’s right to his own life." Ayn Rand

Interesting. I can see that in two ways. Either that there is nothing more sinister than a welcome sleep because it appears to be deceptively harmless, or that a welcome sleep truly is harmless. To me, the context in which it is used alludes to the former. In waking life, letting go of awareness can be deadly.

Heck, they've already forgotten the lessons of the 2008 debt collapse and are already talking as if it had never happened..

Come on Nicky, if you really need to defend the insolvent debt based economy with its matching insolvent government that badly, at least you can do is find a decent reason.

That is what your government subsidized education taught you: Actions have no consequences.

Doesn't an unborn child get a choice?

Believe me, it shows. Many students never make it out of the perennial adolesence of government subsidized education and into the adult world of private sector Capitalist business.

Lending can only be as moral as people are. Maybe you'll learn the value of solvency when the next 2008 comes... and then again maybe not.

...and fair. Because when I'm an end user, I also pay just like everyone else. The trick is to operate on both sides of the ledger so that everything balances out and it is impossible to become a victim. That's an assumed risk as there are no gaurantees in life except that the one who plays an honest game always enjoys the vantage point of the moral high ground.

You're most welcome, Sean. I believe that the power of logic is derived from the ability to observe thought, and it is through this self reflective observation that we acquire the power of reason to act contrary to thought. Hey, it we acted indiscriminately upon every thought that went through our heads, everyone would either be in jail or dead! And that alludes to a fascinating point to ponder: Which one am I? The one who originates the broadcast?... or the one who is listening to the radio?

Highlight the affected letters and cycle the B a few times. When I quoted your post, it appeared that the B got stuck and didn't recognize that they were bold. I see the brain and the mind differently. I see the activity of the brain as an effect of the mind.