Your Thoughts.

[Ebonyknight]

Just really getting into reading about the New World order or the New World Order of Lucifier. And all the conspiracies related to them and how 'Alien' troops are every where for it is easier from someone from another country to kill someone they don't know. Just curious on everyones thoughts here.

[Mormacil]

I don't got the slightest clue you're talking about

[cruxvader]

It's a stagnate and very abominabal thing, some conceptualize the foregnier as a threat to the homeland, but to be perfectly honest, it's completely not true. Personally, I believe you are bringing up a cultural war. But I believe firmly that any rational person avoids such conflicts, for such is the nature of the survivalist.

I've heard about the Lucifer effect, and in my opinion the solution is a matter of conscience. The more we discern for ourselves what is right and wrong and believe in what we see based on that discernment, the better, and generally smarter people we become because of it.

[DarkAsmodeous]

Tell me of an evil that can be committed without force or fraud, if you cannot, then truly this is all you have to worry about.

[Seniosh]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Evil things can be done without force or fraud, by people who aren't evil, and have good intentions. Sometimes they just get carried away. Unfortunately, this means that minds are sometimes lost, to people who inadverdently force their viewpoint on others, and clip individuality before it buds and bares it's full fruits.

Also, is not the US's lack of action in Darfur an evil? It involves a lack of force. Similarly, if i had to press a button once to keep you alive, not to do so would be an evil act. In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

[DarkAsmodeous]

by the US, I assume you are refering to the US government, an institution of force, which is the very definition of government (Don't try and debate that unless you've got some more solid sources than webster, like some serious social theory). Second, forcing your views on others? Can this be accomplished in any way withot force? If you are refering to cultural or social reprecussions being used to "force you" that's people excercizing their free will, and you cannot tell me that free will, which respects others free will, is a bad thing. And the example with the button? I cannot think of a common situation in which that would apply, but I think its a laughable extreme, and its possible to consider the rational choice to let another die in such a situation at no cost to you WOULD be force, in this case murder. What I speak isn't a new concept, Thomas Jefferson, a very intelligent man, laid it down in his original draft of our natural rights document, the decleration of independance, as a right to Life, Liberty, and Property.

[Seniosh]

I was misunderstanding your meaning of force as purely physical. But there are ways to mold a mind without force.

Do you consider censorship a force? It's forcing the writers, but only indirectly the citizens. And i didn't really want to bring up the example, but look at a church, or any other religion. Some of that is just plain old brainwashing. It's feeding misinformation to children who are too young to make their own decisions, and are willing to accept what the adults tell them. That is wasting a mind without using force, and it's plain evil. They aren't truly being forced, because it's willing. At the same time, it limits their mind, engraining the religion's version of the truth into their heads. But is it forced? I would say not.

plus, the U.S. is not using it's force, thus letting evil spread.

Of course a button doesn't apply to every day life in the slightest. That's what a metaphor is used for. Ever heard the famous morality example of the people on the train tracks? You can pull a lever to divert the train and save the people. Common sense right? But what happens when you divert it onto another track which contains less people. If you pull that lever less people will die. What if those people include your family? ect. It's a famous morality question, which would almost never happen in real life.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "force" i don't consider murder a force unto it's own. I was considering force meaning physical, in which case it still stands.

You seem to consider force any action or inaction that takes place, in which case, everything is force and there can by definition be no evils that take place without force. But that can't be what you meant, because then fraud becomes completely irrelevant

[DarkAsmodeous]

Force is, by definition, any rational (willful human) action that violates anothers liberty (maximum freedom to act without infringing on anothers equivilent freedom to act), with the button example, either someone used force to put him in that situation, or its a disease/abnormality that cost someone a good amount of time and money to find a cure for, and someone deserves compensation. With censorship, force is used on the writers, so its definately outside my frame of ethics. With the "brainwashing" example, I agree that I think its incorrect, but I would never hold myself, or anyone else, as having legitimate authority to use force to dictate to others what they ought and ought not teach their children, no man is equiped for that.

[Seniosh]

Well, force has other definitions, and i myself prefer to use a definition more along the lines of using energy. I wasn't thinking about force being something that infringes upon constitutional rights, because the constitution is not inherent, while energy is.

What if you are in a country where the constituition is "Rape murder and pillage to your heart's content"?

It's not so much dictating what someone can or can't teach their children, it's telling them that they shouldn't present a singular and heavily biased viewpoint.

That it's religion is irrelevent. What if someone wanted to homeschool their child and teach them that the earth is flat? Can you stop them? Should you stop them? I'd say that those children have a right to know the truth, or if the truth is debated, be presented will all available viewpoints. You say nobody belives in a flat earth? http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonsk...ociety.htm Well these people do. And i don't think it's quite fair if they exclusively teach their children that the earth is flat, because it generally excludes the viewpoint of a round earth

[DarkAsmodeous]

NO MAN HAS RIGHT TO USE FORCE TO DETERMINE TRUTH.

If that were done, then the earth would STILL be flat, and it would be a crime to teach it round, you cannot regulate the EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE. Next, those are natural rights heavily supported by social theorists from rand, to locke, to rossoue, and based heavily on logic: What right do we all have? To pursue our legitimate interests, can anyone determine these interests or values? Of course not, but neither can we for others. As such, the only legitimate role for force, is to be retaliatorily applied where liberty has already been violated by force or fraud, and done in an objective manner free from the whim of any man to pursue individual interests, the objective rules for retaliatory force must be constrained to the will of the people and be ruled by posative law as opposed to teh more common negative law.