Re: We Shall Fear No Evil (was:: virus: To all sinners...)

Sebastian Kinsey (
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:31:49 PST

the man will likely consider the following in the fer seconds that he he has; 'allowing the train to crash represents a greater evil than killing my son' -- 'but it's my son and well...toughluck train!' -- 'but if i fail to save the train, i will most likely be held legally responsible for the outcome...100 counts of negligent homicide...hmmnnn...prison.....long more sex w/wife...might get sodomized by my new 'friends'...ugly pajamas...essentially the end of my life as i know it....hmmmmnnnn.....well, sorry son, i cant let those people perish my boy...mans gotta do what a mans gotta do...i wonder what else will come my way as a result of my 'painful and heroic self-sacrifice?'.......

My point being that, to claim these angelic tendencies is folly...i'm sure you do actively avoid hurting others..but 1st - it's usually in your own best interest anyway,2nd - its easy to give when it costs you nothing.....

Im not trying to shoot down the concepts of kindness and goodwill -indeed, regardless of true motive..they are entirely relative terms -- ...what im hoping to do is to make you come to terms with your true human nature & stop pretending that you are the idealistic beacon of 'goodness and kindness' --your avoidance of answering your own question is most likely due to the realization that you will have to assume a role no longer entirely free from our animal reality....we all want to be perfect in the eyes of others because it is through that reflection that we are permitted to feel perfect for ourselves - even as we know that they are mistaken...As we all want to live forever - and that is why we make our Gods.

>From: the great tinkerer <>
>Subject: Re: We Shall Fear No Evil (was:: virus: To all sinners...)
>Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:11:55 -0500
>> What happens when you are forced to choose between two
>>which will 'feel wronged' when making an unavoidable decision?
>>this demonstrate faulty 'moral logic' -- naturally your response will
>>something along the lines of "i would decide which would be less
>>wronged"....this of course denoting a sort of all-seeing
>>wisdom...which then infers a kind of deity state, which gets back to
>>zloduska's point that your 'god' is but an imaginary friend you've
>>customized based on your psychological needs and wants + your cultural
>>identity and its inherent value systems. How pretentious and blinded
>>that sounds..mixed with denial of course.
>i deny that there is a need of any deity to be empathetic. my god
>decide who will be wrong more, it depends on my behavioral traits, my
>relationships to the parties, my outlook on how things will result in
>long run etc...
>its called a "moral dillemma."
>a hypothetical:
>a draw bridge operator brings his child to work one day and his child
>wanders around. a train is coming and the bridge is up, but the worker
>sees on the monitor that his child is playing in the gears... if he
>the bridge he will crush his son; if he doesnt lower the bridge a train
>full of people will die. what does this man do?
>the best thing to do is to try to avoid such situations that will cause
>moral dlilema in the first place.
>~the great tinkerer
> - order my cd!!!

Get Your Private, Free Email at