OT: Freedom of expression or the dawn of morality ?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

so, what someone else does is not your business? well, you can, say, try to jump of a bridge all you want, but if i'm there i'm going to try to save you.

take the statement to it's logical conclusion - if what someone else does is not my business, them what that means is that i shouldn't care, at all, about anybody. yes, i know it's a far cry from people's right to a decision, but it's a distinction that needs to be made, firmly.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by oleg:
Just what do you think about sour society after reading this ?
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...376169,00.html

I strongly suspect the article is a hoax on three counts:

1) The money is reported in £ while the location is listed as "just outside Las Vegas" - which is in the USA; they would be dealing with $.

2) It doesn't make economic sense; Cost: £3000 from the hunter; rewards: £1600 per girl that escapes, £700 per girl that doesn't; 3 girls. If all are caught, you get £700 + £700 + £700 = £2100: a £900 profit for the owner. If just one escapes, you have £700 + £700 + £1600 = £3000: the exact price the hunter is being charged; the owner breaks even (this doesn't include such expenses as ammo). If two escape, you have £700 + £1600 + £1600 = £3900: a £900 loss on the part of the hunting grounds. If all three escape, you have £1600 + £1600 + £1600 = £4800: an £1800 loss on the part of the hunting grounds. This is too bad of a buisness model to be real.

3)

The game's inventor, Michael Burdick, defended its safety risks and said contestants were told not to shoot above the chest.

"I don't go deer hunting and see a deer with a football helmet on, so I don't want to see one on my girl, either," he told the Daily Star.

(emphasis added) - the Daily Star is a supermarket tabloid where I live; you can also see headlines of three legged people, space aliens, and celebrity infidelity.

[Lord Kodos]

"the Daily Star is a supermarket tabloid where I live; you can also see headlines of three legged people, space aliens, and celebrity infidelity. "

YOU MEAN I CAN HUNT NAKED THREE LEGGED INFIDEL ALIENS?! IM IN!

^__^

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Lord Kodos:
"the Daily Star is a supermarket tabloid where I live; you can also see headlines of three legged people, space aliens, and celebrity infidelity. "

YOU MEAN I CAN HUNT NAKED THREE LEGGED INFIDEL ALIENS?! IM IN!

^__^

No - you can hunt naked three legged celebrity infidel aliens.

[ July 18, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Lord Kodos]

This just gets better and better! Dont tell me they are Cyclopsean(sp?) also! ^______^

[narf poit chez BOOM]

and every one of them a descendant of Elvis, to.

[Loser]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
so, what someone else does is not your business? well, you can, say, try to jump of a bridge all you want, but if i'm there i'm going to try to save you.

take the statement to it's logical conclusion - if what someone else does is not my business, them what that means is that i shouldn't care, at all, about anybody. yes, i know it's a far cry from people's right to a decision, but it's a distinction that needs to be made, firmly.

Gonna hafta argue this one, Hammermaus.

From my years of experience as Patriarch in various houses of young people, I have learned that you cannot save someone that does not want to save their own self. Keeping someone from the accountability that results from their actions only encourages them to take such actions again in the future. You have to let someone deal with the results of the decisions they make. An unaccountable person is powerless, is childish, is almost not a person at all but an animal with remarkable communication skills and personal hygiene (sometimes).

Now there is a scale to this. I am not an Anarchist and I strongly believe in Law (Lawbringer is one of the Four Roles of the Patriarch). There are things people should not be allowed to do, but try to interfere as little as possible, and when you do, make sure it is with great effect. If you're going to save a guy from jumping off a bridge, you'd better make sure he doesn't think it's a good idea in the future. If getting in his head and showing him what the world would be like if he were never born isn't an option, and most of the time it isn't, then maybe beating the snot out of him then and there will create the appropriate association.

Anything you get for free, even protection or salvation, will be regarded as having no worth, this is a tenant of human behavior. This is why 'givers' are so unappreciated in relationships. This is why every religion requires something of its followers to receive the rewards religion offers: sacrifice of possessions (livestock, property, children, money, whatever), discipline of behavior (everything from a vow of silence to "Thou Shalt Not Kill"), and so on. Even the most 'grace focused' of Christian Denominations, who may even believe in 'Security of the Believer' ("Once saved always saved" no matter what you do), need a small offering of will, requiring the supplicant to admit his/her flawed state and inability to apply correction.

Leave people to their own business because you will not always be there to 'solve' their problems.

[ July 18, 2003, 13:17: Message edited by: Loser ]

[RightDeve]

Originally Posted by narf poit chez BOOM

so, what someone else does is not your business? well, you can, say, try to jump of a bridge all you want, but if i'm there i'm going to try to save you.

take the statement to it's logical conclusion - if what someone else does is not my business, them what that means is that i shouldn't care, at all, about anybody. yes, i know it's a far cry from people's right to a decision, but it's a distinction that needs to be made, firmly.

Ho I LOVE this post!

Damn I like this kind of person; firm, resolute, dignified, and acting with logic instead of superficial fleeting emotion.