Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:59:16 -0800
From: Dave Hayman <dhayman-AT-igc.org>
Subject: Re: personal responsibility


I am not optimistic about actually communicating with this guy. But I'll
try again.

Jeremy Dixon wrote:
> 
> hey dave.....stars got a right to shine, you got a right to moral
> opinions, paint got a right to dry......er, what exactly is 'right'
> adding?

The concept does not apply to stars, paint, or any other non-sentient
things. A "right", as I understand it, and poor Jeremy doesn't, is a
mutual agreement, such as, "I will take your moral opinions seriously if
you do me the same favor." Then we both have the "right" to moral
opinions.
> 
> >  Such ambiguity in a key statement! Shall I blame Jrmy,
> > the language, or the stars? It's my choice. And yours. And if those in
> > power agree with your moral opinions, you must be doing very nicely.
> > (General you, not Jrmy.)
> 
> sure seems like yr gunna blame some one or some thing, dave. ever occured
> to you to question that?

Yes it has, and unlike yours, my answers make sense. 
You have shown that, like most humans, you are capable of intentional
insult. Unlike most humans, you don't believe in "blame". Do you insult
at random, then? Just like the wind blows?

> those in power seem quite keen on people having moral opinions, have you
> noticed that?

I have noticed that they are keen on people having *pseudo-moral*
opinions. I make this distinction because I see a difference between
rich blaming the poor for their misery and poor blaming the rich.
Apparently you don't, which would seem to mean that you can't have any
political position at all, and are just using the list to get attention.
Perhaps I should ignore you, but sometimes you show glimmerings of
intelligence.
> 
> > > Yep, personal responsibility. In general I think we're caught by the law
> > > of cause-and-effect, "if you prick me do I not bleed, if you injure me do
> > > I not seek revenge' These are facts of *the same type*. This law of
> > > cause-and-effect has been likened to a wheel in some traditions, and
> > > properly speaking the aim of any true religion is to free the human will
> > > from the law of cause-and-effect proper to the material world. If this was
> > > done; then it might be possible *relatively speaking* to talk of personal
> > > responsibility.
> >
> > Now he's getting mystical on us. It's hard enough to figure out what's
> > going on here on planet Earth, let alone Heaven.
> 
> you brought heaven into the conversation dave. not me.

So what did you mean by "the aim of any true religion is to free the
human will from the law of cause-and-effect..." ?
> 
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, things like blame and even righteous indigantion are among the
> > > things that hold us into the law of cause-and-effect
> >
> > I don't see how he got to this place without using the law of cause and
> > effect, but I almost agree.
> 
> good one. except I'm not denying cause-and-effect! concentrate dave , or
> not....:-)

The little smiley-face doesn't make it cute to insult me for futilely
attempting to understand your gibberish. If you're not denying it, why
did you bring it up?

> > This doesn't mean there's no morals, as people keep screeching. It's to
> > show you how hard we'll have to work to create a morally-responsible
> > global system.
> >
> explain to me about morals dave? what they are and where they come from?
> 
> -jeremy

You wouldn't understand. They come from people, who have moral feelings.
Are you able to dress yourself without assistance?