Hi mate :)
look closely at what I'm saying.

Stretching, tugging, selective application do not change the truth itself. That simply shows how humanity ticks.

See my other post in response to your michell foucault quote.

Its full circle.. but what a ride :) Just think of all the trees and mountains and valleys and animals we have seen on the way round ?.

Even a circular journey can be 'illuminating' :)

Pericles

one more thing.
Have u ever wondered why Jesus taught largely in....parables ? :)

Violence, killing, murder & natural guilt

When you kill a man, you believe that you kill him forever. Murder is a crime that must then be dealt with. Death, however, does not exist in those terms. In the dawn of physical existence, men knew that death was merely a change of form.

There is never any justification for violence. There is no justification for hatred. There is no justification for murder. Those who indulge in violence for whatever reason are themselves changed, and the purity of their purpose adultered

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.
Compassion “rose” from the biological structure up to emotional reality. With this freedom and free will man is faced with responsibility for action at conscious level and the birth of guilt.

For example, a cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is NOT evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels, both animals understand the roles they play. This does not mean they will not struggle to live, but they have a built-in unconsciousness sense of unity with nature.

Man on a conscious level and with compassion achieved emotional realization.The hunter is forced to emotionally identify with its prey. So to kill is to be killed. The balance of life sustains all. We are to preserve life consciously, then, as the animals preserve it Unconsciously.

Natural guilt is the species’ manifestation of the animals unconsciously sense of justice and integrity. It means: Thou shall not kill more than is need for thy physical sustenance.

Dogtied (like the name).

Nice story about your daughther. It makes you think, which is part of the problem, I suppose.

It may be best to not discuss the reasons/rationale for suicide. It's a trap like trying to understand God. Then again, as Pericles suggests - you wouldn't give up your curiosity for quids.

We struggle on ...

Mark

Mark... its 'dogTIRED' :)

Boaz, "going in circles" is, to me, a pointless and frustrating journey for an argument to take.

Brushing this off as "haven't we had fun along the way" simply doesn't wash.

The act of discussion is supposed to help people understand better the other's point of view, and in the process perhaps learn a little. I have never been particularly happy to argue for argument's sake, simply because it demands no intellectual rigour - think of Monty Python's Argument sketch. If no-one is willing to subject themselves to the discipline of logic, or to be consistent in their approach, no-one learns a thing.

You said:

"look closely at what I'm saying. Stretching, tugging, selective application do not change the truth itself. That simply shows how humanity ticks."

"Stretching and tugging" when used in the context of argument, is a way to examine a proposition, to find out whether, or even how much, it is understood. Claiming that this somehow does not alter "the truth itself" is seems to say that only you can decide what it is. Which, as it happens, is exactly that which I find difficult to accept.

"Stretching and tugging" as in (from another of your recent posts) "a given truth will be tugged and stretched and pulled this way and that by vested interest" is a substantially different proposition to me. This is because I see an enormous difference between a personal view of the world, which gets proffered in discussion, and the "absolute truth", which is precisely the topic being examined. To me, it is illogical to assume the answer, and then rebut all contrary propositions on the basis that the "truth" is already clear.

Conflating the two - "stretching and tugging" referring indiscriminately to both argument and "truth", makes it appear that if you argue against the proposition, you are arguing against "truth". That would be, I'm sure you agree, breathtaking arrogance.

Your reference to "selective application" however is a straight ad hominem insinuation that I take the points you make out of context, which I deny absolutely.

Have a great day