David Valadez wrote:
... or that He is both subject and slave to impulses and/or instincts that are akin to the mechanisms behind a rattlesnake's bite...
All that stuff you said is real nice in a dojo or church or some other bubble. In reality, the average person (the great majority) does not practice Aikido. Further, they don't adhere strongly to moral codes when the reward of a decision is strong ego gratification.
I'm sure in a lot of little towns all over the world, people do the "right" thing. But I've never seen it--atleast not when the reward for not doing the right thing is significant.
So, as far as people being like rattlesnakes, it's an analogy which is consistent with my experience.
Further, the veiw that people are rattlesnakes is so wide spread, the US gov. is based on it: capitalism. People are motivated by self interest. What you're talking about seems to dismiss that.
Dan Herak wrote:
... I find it quite disturbing that nobody called him on it and I am not going to apologize for doing so...
It's not about disagreeing, it's about attacking someone personally instead of rationally disagreeing. Ad Hominem is a term in logic. Whenever you attack someone, it's illogical; meaning that the character of the person is irrelevant to the statement that person made.
Joep Schuurkes wrote:
Isn't that a very indirect approach to solving the porblem?.
So, correct me if I'm misinterpreting. You're saying,"It's an indirect solution to not financially support a business who's practices are inconsistent with your beliefs?"
If that's a correct interpretation, I say it doesn't matter whether it's direct or indirect. It's the right solution.
Regarding the rest or your post: I like lines. I like order. However, I do not feel that my opinion, whether it's consistent with this culture or not, should be imposed in this fashion (violating the rights of the business owner here. He has the right to run a business that doesn't have respect for lines.)
On the rape stuff, I think I outlined it above.