BTW Issy,

Ghandi made a moral judgement between cowardice and violence as a means of defence of ones self, or loved ones. Wars, those involved in such are rarely engaged in defence but rather just the opposite they are usually involved in violent aggression.

Your hero Goosey Goosey was the violent one, always biting other geese like little Bunty!

If you were attacked by 50 club wielding Hells Angles, make that 100 just to be sure, intent on your total demise, and the only weapon you had at your disposal, was the loincloth you were wearing that evening. All I can say is; "Best of luck, start running!"

Indy, if we get Labor, Liberal or Green we've proven without doubt that the electorate is, in fact, dumber than a block of clay.

So Fellas who should we get, what's your choice? I like these people who make such statements, but are coy when it comes to spilling their guts as to who they believe we should get.

coy when it comes to spilling their guts as to who they believe we should get.
Paul1405,
You'd have to be thicker than that block of clay Albie's talking about if you haven't picked up by now which crowd we' prefer !
BTW, how would you deal with juvenile delinquents to prevent them from becoming violent extremists ? Continue to teach them how to bleat discrimination or appeal to their remaining senses to be more responsible to others & even more to themselves ?
I think I have posted my views enough times here !

Dear Foxy,

«We don't always like the laws or rules»

Now this is all about our philosophical and moral values, not about what we happen to like or not.

Do we believe that violence is OK so long as it is perpetrated by a large group of people who have been controlling the earth for centuries?

The word "society" is confusing and misleading as it can easily be stretched, pulled and extended as one desires. Each one of us is probably involved in dozens of societies, circles of people with whom they socialise in one way or another.

What's in a name that determines that if a group of people call themselves the "Philatelic society", "The Translucent Jade Warriors" or the "Church of Scientology" then they are expected to preserve the peace and not enlist others to their society without their consent, but if they call their group "Commonwealth of Australia" then they are suddenly entitled to do such things by violent means?

Have you any solid philosophical grounds to differentiate between the powers of the "Philatelic society" and the "Commonwealth of Australia", or is it just because the group calling themselves "Commonwealth of Australia" makes you personally feel warmer and more protected from others and from the forces of nature?

[continued...]

[...continued]

I understand that you feel insecure, so let me clarify: it is legitimate for you (and for all others) to defend yourself. It is even legitimate for you to join with others in order to create a society of mutual self-defense. Such a society may then utilise the total powers of its members to work towards its shared goals: physical powers, mental powers and also moral powers.

Your society has and may use up to, but no more than the combined sum of powers of its members. What is obvious with physical and mental powers is also true about its morality: it may do what it takes to defend its members from harm, but it has no moral authority to "protect" others who are not its members and thus never willingly lent their moral authority to it.

By attempting to protect others who never willingly subscribed to its membership, your "Commonwealth of Australia" society (as well as practically any other state today) is acting violently beyond its moral powers. In other words it is immoral.

It is typical of extremists to fail to recognise their extremism. They may say, "but I only follow the Bible", "I only follow the Koran", "I only follow the traditions of my forefathers", "I only", "I only", "I only"...

What you are essentially saying is "I only want to feel safe", without considering what effects your attempt to feel safer has on others who hold other values/preferences and might not share your particular feelings of insecurity.

If you really believe in what you wrote in your last two posts to me, then without recognising it, you are a radical extremist.