Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:19:10 10/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 1999 at 10:40:27, KarinsDad wrote: the word reasonable is a word without content. you can fill it with everything you like. >The issue is one of being reasonable. A non-reasonable criminal is put in jail. there are many reasonable criminals, running arround and beeing big capitalists. they own the newspapers, tv-stations and manipulate the public-opinion. >A non-reasonable poster is banned. who decides to ban ? the guys who have bought the newspapers and the tv-stations. so the criminals decide whom to ban. >People burn their own bridges and no amount >of sympathy from a friend changes the fact that some people act the way they do. somtimes a bridge is beeing bombed, with a train on it, and in the train people sit and have nothing done than beeing at the wrong place in the wrong time. americans call this collateral damage. the wrong guys are in prison. in prison should be the guys throwing the bombs. not the guys in the train on the bridge that was burned by a bomb, throwen by "democracies" . >Personal responsibility has to apply or anarchy reigns. freedom of speech is not anarchy. or US would be an anarchy. >Remember: Doing something is an action. Not doing something is also an action. >Both will influence the fate of the society. and throwing bombs on those who did something and on those who did nothing is also AN ACTION. and this ACTION is not peaceful too, and this action will also change society. >By whose definition? No matter how society changes, someone will be unhappy. All >you can do is try to live your own life the best you can and hopefully if you >are a good and honest person, some of that will reflect in your small portion of >society. Beyond that, you are dealing with human behavior on a massive scale and >little can be done. you cannot change a society with giving anybody a weapon or throw bombs on hiroshima or bombs on yugoslavia. never. >One other point: You indicate that people are important, but then you put down >Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, and Gerhard Schroeder as "actors" as if actors are >any less of people than other people. an actor for hollywood. acting means not to be honest. to playing a role. if people tell people what they will do, and later, after they have been elected they do the opposite, than these people lie, like actors do. as long as reagan plays a dumb cowboy in a b-movie, it is ok. in the moment he plays a dumb president in a b-country/society, i have to protest. > It is a two way street. If you want people >to respect your opinion, you have to respect others. These individuals have been >very successful and influential and do not deserve criticism based on previous >career decisions. One should view the work they do in the job they have, not in >what jobs they held before. you don't get the point ! i was saying that the people are not interested in what these people do, as long as they play good. if they kill indians, throw bombs on people or lie, people are interested in how good the movie is. i said people cannot anymore differenciate between reality and life. It happens all the day in america, the country with the big movie industrie: children shoot on other children, for no reason. the kill each other, because they believe it is a movie. one of those reagan movies where he kills a few indians for a hand of $. >Otherwise, you are not supporting your own view that >people are important. View people based on their actions, not on some title they >hold. Something to think about. i am supporting my own views. the best support for my views was how america has thrown bombs on a society, "to make peace", this was the best movie i have ever seen. because it showed what happens when fools have the power to act in any role they want. >KarinsDad :) KarinsSon :-)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.