--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300023 Date: 02/03/98 From: MARK BLOSS Time: 01:45pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty > >Frank Masingill wrote to Mark Bloss about Death Penalty FM> He doesn't have one and that was not his motive in responding to me FM> anyhow. He just stalks me periodically to deliver a personal attack and FM> feels no shame in doing so. I have grown to expect it. His words are FM> self-explanatory. Entirely predictable. Actually it almost flatters FM> me. There have been others as you have also experienced and there will FM> be others in the future. No permanent cure. Ah! So he's a fan of yours then! I have some also. Haven't seen this one in the echo before though. --- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c * Origin: Cybercosm Nashville 615-831-3774 (1:116/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300024 Date: 02/03/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 11:04am \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty FM> other in what happens in the various jurisdictions. I doubt that FM> anybody would argue that this final penalty is evenly enforced. DB> That may be, but that does not prove that death is worse than life in DB> prison Frank. FWIW, many killers are, in fact, mad. Terminally so, and DB> that the mental condition is so painful that they will be irrational at DB> a moment's notice, anytime, and may, as many have, kill someone *while DB> serving life*. The most refreshing thing about a reply from you, Day, as opposed to the nutty little personal attackers is that you take the subject matter and the thinker seriously. I agree with everything you say above and, in fact, should I be in the unfortunate position of having to choose, I might well choose the needle rather than life imprisonment. Of course, you and I both know that the mentalities of some of these people is such that they would choose the imprisonment without hesitation, hoping that something might happen to everse their situation. That is why I tend to think that IF society has to choose for a criminal and chooses the path of life imprisonment then life imprisonment certainly should be enforced. I understand, however, what I judge to be your preference for the maintenance in jurisprudence of the death penality. That is why I left room for sincerely held points of view. My limited experience tells me that it depends a lot of the circumstances as to the behavior of a murderer while serving a prison term. I toured our local parish prison with some civic group a number of years ago and recall that the warden told us that he liked personally MOST of the murderers better than any of the other population and had virtually no trouble with them. hey had killed once in a fit of passion and were not calculated EVER to do it again. THAT line of reasoning indicates treating each case on its merits but then that brings us right back to the "Unabomber" case vs that of the Texas woman who may or may not be executed tonight. DB> The psychological data suggests that not only does the murderer not DB> value your life, he don't value his *either*. This is why a large DB> percentage of them are drug abuseers; many of them find the DB> stupefacation to be the only release from existence they can find the DB> will to use, although many do commit suicide as well. I would argue that DB> capital punishment, were it carried out quickly, is a lot more like DB> euthanasia than revenge. And I would heartily agree with much of this with the caveat that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the judgement were swiftly executed one might want to weigh the matter in the calculus of humanity and conclude that the tortue of waiting and not knowing for ten or fifteen years before he ax might finally fall could be deemed "cruel and unusual punishment" in SOME cases far exceeding in cruelty to crime committed by the criminal. What DOES seem to be unfair is that all of the statistics I'ver read indicate that the impoverished and stupid criminals (stupidity MIGHT define "criminal," I don't know) are far more likely to get death than the smarter and better-healed ones. I can understand the views of some, NOT ALL, of the families of the victims when the death penalty is NOT exacted. DB> If you would be humane, at least you would recommend that lifers be DB> given free use of stupifying drugs to ease the pain of a life they do DB> not want to lead. You and I are VERY MUCH in sync on that!! I have a semi-invalid wife who has suffered untold agony with pains in back and legs and taken tons of drugs to no avail until mercifully she has recently obtained a treatment in a odern Hospital pain control center which worked an absolute miracle as far as we're concerned and it's lasted now for two or three months. Now, don't get me wrong. I was in a chicken shack the other night when some man, obviously on something, was stumbling, falling against trash cans, etc., trying to make it out of the place after leaning against the counter and arguing brainlessly with the help. I do think there IS a place for drugs and would tend to be quite liberal in permitting them under conditions that offer relief to the person without causing harm in society. It seems to me that it would even cost less to keep them in opium dens until they die if that is what they want and that's possible. You can tell (grin) that I read Saxe (sp?) ohmer's(sp?) books when I was a teen ager. I never tried anything, however, except corn silk, crossvine and finally tobacco (having been introduced to it mainly by a medicinal menthol cigarette sold at that time in pharmacies to both children and adults. That is why KOOLs became my cigarette of choice for fifty years until I quit in 1987. DB> As for the Ancients, at least they had a world seen as having some kind DB> of place suitable for banishment. today, wherever you put the people DB> like this, they threaten the well being of those who are already there. When we were on the Canal Zone in the early fiftes, Panama was extending her justice system over the San Blas Islanders but it was my impression that they still operated under their "kings" and used the smaller, uninhabited islands for places of ostracism. They no longer killed their "white" hildren (albinos) but did keep them segregated and evidently attributed some special powers to them. I see evidence on television that we're re-introducing into our society he kind of piercings of various places on the body that once was not customary - at least where I grew up. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300025 Date: 02/03/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 11:40am \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty FM> He doesn't have one and that was not his motive in responding to me FM> anyhow. He just stalks me periodically to deliver a personal attack and FM> feels no shame in doing so. I have grown to expect it. His words are FM> self-explanatory. Entirely predictable. Actually it almost flatters me. FM> There have been others as you have also experienced and there will be FM> others in the future. No permanent cure. MB> Ah! So he's a fan of yours then! I have some also. Haven't seen this MB> one in the echo before though. I know. He flits about (grin) looking for me or anybody else to venomize. I've been Fidonetting for over ten years now and am much accustomed to it. Sometimes this type deep down in their guts wants to learn something and ries to goad older and more experienced people into revealing something. Seems to me the straightforward way that most of us use just by admitting our gnorance in so many areas is the best but I'm not much of a psychologist. I was aised to be polite to people unless severely provoked and it's a difficult habit to break. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300026 Date: 02/03/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 11:59am \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: Race & IQ DB> As defined by the fundies; I will accept the more perjorative in use DB> here, as well as accept the perjorative view of fundamentalist Christian DB> conservatives. I am neither; I am Machiavellian. Well, (grin) I would say that stamps you as a non-ideologue because I on't view Machiavelli as one. I will concede that when YOU say you're a Machiavellian you know what that is. Many only know the part about "evil" ends justifying "evil" means which you and I know isn't anywhere IN Machiavelli. He left his PRINCE free to believe and act in any way he might choose, only pointing out the almost certain consequences for the State (his power in terms of that day) if he leaned too far in certain directions. He couldn't be stamped a heretic because his description of humanity looked a great deal like "original sin" which is a Christian symbol!! DB> Now if you wanna restrict citizenship to only those who can pass a DB> literacy test, I have no problem with that. Nor do I as long as games aren't played as they WERE played by voting registrars in the fifties. I saw that first hand. Like so much else at the time it came to hurt the white people who took refuge in it much more than he "Blacks" who all had coaching and the power of the courts behind THEM. DB> If I, for one, were given the opportunity to raise a family in a nation DB> that only allowed in citizens who could pass a test on the works of DB> Machaivelli and Plato, I would expect that nation to be very well DB> educated, have very high job skills, and be positioned very DB> competitively for the global 21st century economy. I heard and read Peter Bertocci of Boston University closely on that one. I don't think all of our plumbers or janitors or other quite good and respectable people care to sit down and pour over the Republic or the Gorgias but Bertocci did not think that should be an excuse for not introducing them to the existence of such a world. I'm almost a void when it comes to serious mathematics despite a college education but the small amount of math I can understand as it has to do with elementary computer programming fascinates me. That's something of what I mean. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300027 Date: 02/03/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 12:20pm \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: Time and Again 12:20:0702/03/98 DB> ascribe a personality, which is what everone who thought about God did DB> in his, and indeed our, time do, and did. Which is why he could have a "theology" in which the "gods" could not be bribed. I continue to read your posts with pleasure. In some important ways Plato was WAY ahead of noetic searchers today. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300028 Date: 02/03/98 From: TODD HENSON Time: 03:54am \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: Time and Again MB> Time began at the Big Bang. The reason this is the best natural MB> explanation is not because "time" is an existant "thing" like a carpet MB> or a wall; but because there must be a definition to support an MB> abstract idea such as "time". MB> MB> In order for "time" to be meaningful, there must be movement - or a MB> context, if you will. Since before the Big Bang we cannot theorize MB> (we can speculate), then time is meaningless before the Big Bang MB> because we can describe nothing that gives it a context in which to MB> move- without a universe for it to move within. ...snip... Great explanation. With all Richard's whining -an excuse to ignore truth- I wonder how he will respond to what you have posed. I wonder what he thinks when people like yourself and Clarence actually come to similar conclusions to a "mad fundie" like myself. ... Al's Vet & Taxidermy: Either way, you get your dog back. --- * Origin: Nite Lite BBS (1:2410/534) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2300029 Date: 02/02/98 From: RICHARD MEIC Time: 04:57pm \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: Time and Again Salutatio Mark! 02-Feb-98, Mark Bloss wrote to Richard Meic Subject: Time and Again MB> > >Richard Meic wrote to Mr. Rigor about Time and Again RM>> Okay, ignore what we have just gone through. RM>> Question: Leading theorists of our day claim that time began at RM>> the Big Bang (the BB is something I still dispute). Why does RM>> time have to have a beginning? IMO, claiming such is sheer RM>> speculation, built from assumption. RM>> There starting from scratch. Your turn. ;) MB> Time began at the Big Bang. Too concrete of an answer. Sorry, I am not looking for the conclusions of the "established" theory, I have heard them before many many times. MB> The reason this is the best natural MB> explanation is not because "time" is an existant "thing" like a [...] MB> there can be no time. Hmm, I think I just said that... ;) MB> Alright, that's one explanation. Again, this is relying too much on the assumption that the Big Bang is absolute fact. If we are going to work from that assumption, then I must ask how they are so certain that time DID begin at the BB? What observations were made that lead to THAT particular conclusion? An expanding universe? Then, what evidence is there that the universe is expanding? Red shift? What if I was to tell you that recent observations found a huge "river" of galaxies and clusters moving in a totally weird direction? Is an expanding universe still that accurate of a conclusion? So, if it is possible that the BB may not be true, then it is possible that time did not begin at the BB,... right? So, I do not accept this conclusion. MB> Given the theory that the MB> universe "always was", or did not have a beginning, such as what MB> we think of when we think of "beginning" - then time is even less MB> meaningful. I do not see it that way. MB> How does one measure something which is infinite in nature? By measuring it in parts; second, minute, hour, day, year... etc. Time, then, has meaning. MB> A mile is equal to a millimeter, an hour takes the same MB> amount of time as a millenium. Huh? How do you conclude THAT, Mark? I cannot see how you can say that a millenium can take no longer to pass then an hour. That does not sound logical to me, infinite time or not. MB> Therefore, "time" loses its meaning MB> in the context of infinity; because there is no contextual MB> dimension with which we can _reliably_ claim any moment is MB> definite. Regardless of whether time is infinite in duration or not, an hour takes the same amount of time to pass and a millenium takes much longer. MB> How do you know you are how tall you are? Because in MB> _relation_ with your surroundings, you stay the same size all the MB> time. Hold a tape measure next to your body, and you can see how MB> tall you are. Mark the wall when you stand next to it, and the MB> mark is definite, it does not move. Now remove the wall, the tape MB> measure, in fact, ever last thing in existence, then tell me how MB> tall you are. You cannot, because there is no contextual MB> relationship between you and "existence". I cannot see how you can make the incredible leap of logic from infinite time to non-existence of everything. MB> In fact, you are now MB> incapable of even demonstrating that you exist at all. Your argument is meaningless in light of the fact that there are three spacial dimensions and one of time, the fact that there are things like walls, people, planets, stars etc that exist. MB> Time is MB> part of our reality, but it is only a part of a reality as long as MB> reality _is_ reality. Remove time from reality, and you have no MB> reality; remove all existent things from reality, and you have no MB> time. How do you draw the conclusion that if nothing existed then time does not exist. Remember, in the BB theory, there was SOMETHING that existed, the "primordial atom". MB> Now, let me pose a question: scientists have grasped hold MB> of the idea that the universe is expanding. What, pray tell, is MB> the universe expanding into? Empty space? I see no reason to think of anything more elaborate or incredible than that. The primordial atom just sitting there in the middle of infinite space/time is simple enough that we do not require time to begin. MB> But before you answer that: Too late. ;) MB> let me MB> see if you are capable of this thought experiment (Einstein loved MB> those). Imagine you are not Human. In fact, imagine you've never MB> seen any planets or stars - imagine you are a disembodied entity - MB> you have no form or measure - only pure thought. You have never MB> seen a clock, never heard a tick-tock, never seen numbers or a MB> ruler, or conceived of a thing as being distant, and another thing MB> as being nearby. Perhaps you can imagine you are that thing into MB> which the universe itself is expanding. Or perhaps not. It's up MB> to you how to proceed. By what measure do you use to judge MB> distance? By what "clock" do you measure the elapsing intervals MB> of moments? Are you saying that time only exists because matter exists, because motion exists? I would like to see the chain of logic that brought you to that conclusion. MB> By what method do you judge weightiness or vacuum or MB> color or vibration? If you are that into which the universe is MB> expanding, how close is its edge to you? Can you see it coming? MB> How fast is it moving? Very fast? Or very slow? That's step one. Empty questions, because this is not the reality of the situation. I am not that which the universe is expanding into. MB> Step two now is imagine that none of us has ever existed. None of MB> us, though we all are conscious beings: have never seen a planet [...] MB> How do we judge its size, its mass, its velocity of expansion? MB> How close is it to "us"? What is it? More empty questions, IMO. They do not reflect reality, so they are useless. One cannot make up an alternate reality and arrive at any meaningful conclusion. If there was a pink hippo named "Daisy" that hung around a certain person's back yard and partied a lot, would Daisy then be God? This question is as meaningless as the ones you just proposed. Thought experiments are fine, fun, and give us unique insights into non-reality, but they are useless as methods of answering questions about reality. Dicere... email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca) Richard Meic --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: (0) Always watching. (1:134/242.7) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2400000 Date: 02/03/98 From: MARK BLOSS Time: 06:42pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Wille und Welle "Wille und Welle" (Will and Wave) by F. Nietzche How greedily this wave approaches, as if it were after something! How it crawls with terrifying haste into the inmost nooks of this labyrinthine cliff! ... it seems that something of value, high value, must be hidden there. - And now it comes back, a little more slowly but still quite white with excitement; is it disappointed? Has it found what it looked for? Does it pretend to be disappointed? - But already another wave is approaching, still more greedily and savagely than the first, and its soul too, seems to be full of secrets and the lust to dig up treasures. Thus live waves - [and] thus live we who will... Carry on as you like, roaring with overweening pleasure and malice- or dive again... and throw your infinite white mane of foam and spray over them: Everything suits me, for everything suits you so well, and I am so well disposed toward you for everything... For... I know you and your secret, I know your kind! You and I- are we not of a kind?- You and I- do we not have one secret? [end quote] In reference to the above, Arendt writes, "at first it seems as though we were dealing with a perfect metaphor... The relation of the waves to the sea from which they erupt without intent or aim, create a tremendous purposeless excitement, resembles and therefore illuminates the turmoil the Will excites in the household of the soul." The definition of a classic metaphor is the "perfect resemblance of two relations between two totally dissimilar things". Can anyone tell me _why_ the above is NOT a classic Homeric metaphor? ... Why are there 5 syllables in the word "monosyllabic"? --- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c * Origin: Cybercosm Nashville 615-831-3774 (1:116/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2400001 Date: 02/03/98 From: SHEPPARD GORDON Time: 01:26pm \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty FM> This is addressed only to the serious thinkers on the echo. SG> What an obnoxious statement! Moreover, it shows that you don't seem SG> to have a clue as to what echomail is. SG> Get a clue, Frank. MB > So... where is your answer to his question? My reply was sufficient -- that he (perhaps you too) shoudl get a clue before posting such obnoxious idiocy so devoid of understanding of echomail. --- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10 * Origin: MoonDog BBS Brooklyn,NY 718 692-2498 (1:278/230) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F2400002 Date: 02/03/98 From: SHEPPARD GORDON Time: 03:21pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty SG> Get a clue, Frank. MB> So... where is your answer to his question? FM> He doesn't have one You don't have a clue. FM> This is addressed only to the serious thinkers on the echo. What an obnoxious statement! Moreover, it shows that you don't seem to have a clue as to what echomail is. Do you have brain damage? Or do you merely choose to live in imposed ignorance? --- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10 * Origin: MoonDog BBS Brooklyn,NY 718 692-2498 (1:278/230)