Re: Tom Sherman - liberal, socialist, communist!



J

Jeff Grippe

Guest
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
> not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...


Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more liberal
than Mr. Sherman
 
"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
>> not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

>
> Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more liberal
> than Mr. Sherman
>


If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you change
from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out to be?

Disturbing.

Keats
 
Well for one, I don't believe in God. I accept my cultural heritage as a Jew
but basically I consider Judiasm a monotheistic religion and I don't go in
for monothesim.

For two, I acknowledge that the human species is tribal and territorial but
I don't accept it as an endpoint. I am human and as a human, I am not
different from other humans. Infact I am closely related to them. In my
opinion, they are all my brothers and sisters. Even those that would not
acknowledge me as a brother are still my family.

I don't confine myself to the limitations of what I was born into. I am a
nut. I am hardly a realist for if I were I should surely know better and the
truth is I don't.

Sooner or later, my life will come to an end but if my vision only reaches
as few a two other people then I have done my job. If there is a
monotheistic god then he/she/it will be thrilled with what I have done. If
he/she/it isn't, then it isn't a god I want anything to do with anyway.

Clear enough?

Jeff

"Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and has
>>> not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...

>>
>> Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more
>> liberal than Mr. Sherman
>>

>
> If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
> like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you
> change from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out to
> be?
>
> Disturbing.
>
> Keats
>
 
"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well for one, I don't believe in God. I accept my cultural heritage as a
> Jew but basically I consider Judiasm a monotheistic religion and I don't
> go in for monothesim.
>
> For two, I acknowledge that the human species is tribal and territorial
> but I don't accept it as an endpoint. I am human and as a human, I am not
> different from other humans. Infact I am closely related to them. In my
> opinion, they are all my brothers and sisters. Even those that would not
> acknowledge me as a brother are still my family.
>
> I don't confine myself to the limitations of what I was born into. I am a
> nut. I am hardly a realist for if I were I should surely know better and
> the truth is I don't.
>
> Sooner or later, my life will come to an end but if my vision only reaches
> as few a two other people then I have done my job. If there is a
> monotheistic god then he/she/it will be thrilled with what I have done. If
> he/she/it isn't, then it isn't a god I want anything to do with anyway.
>
> Clear enough?
>
> Jeff
>
> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> He is very ill-educated. He only studied science and engineering and
>>>> has not a liberal arts education at all. If he had ...
>>>
>>> Ah but I have a credible liberal -arts background and I'm far more
>>> liberal than Mr. Sherman
>>>

>>
>> If that's the case then you must be some kind leftist secular progressive
>> like Mr. Sherman and not a Jew. What was it, I wonder, that made you
>> change from being a Jew to being something like what Sherman turned out
>> to be?
>>
>> Disturbing.
>>
>> Keats
>>

>
>


You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for" monotheism,
but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information. If you don't
believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you go in for
polytheism?

It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family what
do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a a
thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do it?

Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house containing
enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in time of war and
a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on the way to school.
I would certainly hope you would be able to make a moral distinction here.
If you can't then I doubt you are capable of making any moral distinctions.

Keats
 
(not Tom) Keats LIED:
> ...
> Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house containing
> enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in time of war and
> a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on the way to school....


Oh ********!

Change to "Sherman claims moral equivalence to deliberate targeting of
non-combatant civilians by military forces to a suicide bomber blowing
up a bus of school children on the way to school" and I will not argue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
> monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information.
> If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you
> go in for polytheism?
>


I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not exist
creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up to "god".
They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary chemestry to
them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why would there be
only one? They probably have no interest in us, however, unless we are
somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and concepts and they
probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider this to be certain. I
actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider it to be more likely than
the monotheistic god, however.

> It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
> that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family
> what do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a a
> thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do it?
>


No! You can not stop violence with violence. If you do, it is a temporary
victory at best. It is only when the brothers themselves decide to stop
fighting that lasting peace can be achieved.

Did you miss the part of my reply where I said I am a nut and hardly a
realist? I'm putting in a separate paragraph so that you see it.

> Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house
> containing enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in
> time of war and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on
> the way to school. I would certainly hope you would be able to make a
> moral distinction here. If you can't then I doubt you are capable of
> making any moral distinctions.


I never compared myself to Sherman at the level of details. I see and
understand his point but I find anybody blowing up anyone for any reason to
be morally reprehensible. You are asking me which is worse? I refuse to
acknowledge that the question even has a basis in real ethical values.

The level at which Sherman's statement applies is that both groups are
blowing up people because of an idea that they believe in. You say one is
better than the other. I'm sure you can twist it to a point where I will
agree with you. That doesn't make either act a moral one. The commandment
(if you believe in them) doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless it is
necessary to prevent some other tragedy" But we pretend that some killing is
moral and some killing isn't. I'll grant you that some people believe that
some killing is necessary but you will never get me to say that any killing
is moral. It isn't.

You, my friend, need to study your morals a bit more. The Sunday School
class that I is from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM on Sundays. My students are 3rd,
4th, and 5th graders and most of them have been in my class for at least one
year. I don't think you'd have any trouble catching up, however.

Jeff
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You are an adult after all, aren't you?



That is one of my favorite questions. In my opinion, and I'm being serious,
"Adult" is a concept that is no more useful than "God".

When you ask that question, you do not mean "Are you biologically mature?".
The answer to that question is yes. I am sexually mature, have facial,
underarm, and pubic hair. I also have grey hair and male pattern baldness at
this point in my life. I have also reached the full height which I am going
to attain. So, biologically, I am an adult.

However, you are asking a very different question. You are asking if I have
accepted a set of world views and opinions the conform to a specific social
norm. The answer to that question is, as I have said many times, no.

What is an Adult, Ed? You are using that word to mean so much more than
biological. You are asking me something like "Don't you realize that you
have childish ideas and that you should adjust them to be more like mine?"

You see, Ed, I like childish ideas. You've never raised a child so you'll
have to take my word here but...

It is far easier to settle disputes between young children. They are not as
stuck in their positions. Ultimately they would rather play than argue. As
they age it gets harder and harder to settle disputes. They come to feel
that they must win for winnings sake. At times they would rather argue than
play because the outcome of the arguement means so much to their egos and
sense of self. As they get older it gets worse and worse.

So you are asking me if I've fallen victim to this thing that we call
"Adulthood"?

Yes I have but I think I see it for what it is.

When the day comes (and I hope it will) that I can ride again, you and I
could, if we were in the same place, get together and ride. Assuming that
the weather is nice we could enjoy the day. We could stop for a cold drink,
enjoy the ride, argue a bit just for fun, and just have a good time.

Do you mean to say that I should have strong feelings about you that would
keep this from happening just because you and I have radically different
ideas about how the world is?

I am trying to move backwards. I would rather play than argue. I don't care
who is right. I've already confessed to being a fool. If you can't tolerate
that type of person then don't come near me.

So you tell me, am I an Adult? I hope the answer is No!

Happy Trails, Ed.

Jeff
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> But the Israeli Defense Forces always try to pinpoint their offense measures
> to take out only the bad guys....


Only in the US and right-wing Israeli and European media.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
>> monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information.
>> If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you
>> go in for polytheism?
>>

>
> I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not exist
> creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up to "god".
> They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary chemestry to
> them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why would there be
> only one? They probably have no interest in us, however, unless we are
> somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and concepts and they
> probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider this to be certain. I
> actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider it to be more likely than
> the monotheistic god, however....


Bah! The Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with His
Noodly Appendage!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> Ed,
>
> There is no use in responding to you with substance because you don't really
> want serious discussion....


HOT DOG! We have a wiener!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bah! The Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with His
> Noodly Appendage!
>


Everyone knows that but do you think that there is only one FSM? And who
created the FSM's? My guess would be the holy pasta maker. And who created
the holy pasta maker. My guess would be Ronco.
 
"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You say you don't believe in God and that you don't "go in for"
>> monotheism, but I'm not sure why you added the monotheism information. If
>> you don't believe in God then you don't believe in monotheism. Do you go
>> in for polytheism?
>>

>
> I consider polytheism more likely. I believe that there may or may not
> exist creatures that have all of the attributes that we would say add up
> to "god". They can create what we call life (it may only be elementary
> chemestry to them). Even we can destroy it. If such a thing existed, why
> would there be only one? They probably have no interest in us, however,
> unless we are somebody's experiment. But I'm using human terms and
> concepts and they probably don't if they exsit at all. I don't consider
> this to be certain. I actually consider it to be unlikely. I do consider
> it to be more likely than the monotheistic god, however.
>
>> It seems your "vision" is everyone is your brother and sister. How does
>> that change anything? If one of these brothers is killing your family
>> what do you do? Nothing? If you had to go into armed combat to stop a a
>> thousand brothers from killing a million other brothers would you do it?
>>

>
> No! You can not stop violence with violence. If you do, it is a temporary
> victory at best. It is only when the brothers themselves decide to stop
> fighting that lasting peace can be achieved.
>
> Did you miss the part of my reply where I said I am a nut and hardly a
> realist? I'm putting in a separate paragraph so that you see it.
>


No I did see that, but I didn't take it in the literal sense that you really
are a nut. But now I understand.


>> Sherman claims moral equivalence for soldiers blowing up a house
>> containing enemy combatants making bombs to kill innocent civilians in
>> time of war and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children on
>> the way to school. I would certainly hope you would be able to make a
>> moral distinction here. If you can't then I doubt you are capable of
>> making any moral distinctions.

>
> I never compared myself to Sherman at the level of details. I see and
> understand his point but I find anybody blowing up anyone for any reason
> to be morally reprehensible. You are asking me which is worse? I refuse to
> acknowledge that the question even has a basis in real ethical values.
>


OK. But now even our friend Tom Johnny is weasling out on that one. He's
leaving a really special catagory open for you.


> The level at which Sherman's statement applies is that both groups are
> blowing up people because of an idea that they believe in. You say one is
> better than the other. I'm sure you can twist it to a point where I will
> agree with you. That doesn't make either act a moral one. The commandment
> (if you believe in them) doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless it is
> necessary to prevent some other tragedy" But we pretend that some killing
> is moral and some killing isn't. I'll grant you that some people believe
> that some killing is necessary but you will never get me to say that any
> killing is moral. It isn't.
>


Lemme get this straight. Some predator like
so-called-brother is murdering your family and you are standing there with a
gun in your hand, but you refuse to blow his sorry ass away. Why? Because
a Commandment, from a God you don't believe in, doesn't have a proviso
saying you can kill to prevent some other tragedy? Or that killing this
murdering son of a ***** won't end all the violence on earth? Or that
killing the ******* violates some other sort of cockamamie
ethical belief you have concocted out of nothingness?

How do you tell children that Daddy won't protect them from monsters?


> You, my friend, need to study your morals a bit more. The Sunday School
> class that I is from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM on Sundays. My students are 3rd,
> 4th, and 5th graders and most of them have been in my class for at least
> one year. I don't think you'd have any trouble catching up, however.
>



I'm wondering what parents in their right mind would turn over their 4th and
5th grade children for this kind of thought indoctrination? The only thing
I can conclude is that they must be nuts too.

Sundy School implies some sort of church affilation. If that's true then
I'd take a wild ass guess at Uniterian. But no wait, that implies a
cornerstone of monotheism which you "don't go in for".

Let's just say I don't understand. And I guarantee I'd have a hell of a
time catching up with those 5th graders who have been under your influence
for a year.
 
"Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lemme get this straight. Some predator like
> so-called-brother is murdering your family and you are standing there with
> a gun in your hand, but you refuse to blow his sorry ass away. Why?
> Because a Commandment, from a God you don't believe in, doesn't have a
> proviso saying you can kill to prevent some other tragedy? Or that
> killing this murdering son of a ***** won't end all the violence on earth?
> Or that killing the ******* violates some other sort of cockamamie
> ethical belief you have concocted out of nothingness?
>
> How do you tell children that Daddy won't protect them from monsters?
>


Didn't I tell you that you could twist the example to the point where I
would agree with you?

When I protect my friends and family from harm, which I would do by any
means necessary, I am not acting on behalf of some ideology but rather I am
responding to a real and present threat.

I've been studying martial arts for many years. I have no problem with
protecting my family but there is a difference between an immediate threat
and a war.

In a conflict such as the one in the middle east, each side is playing the
children's game of "I got you last". Do you remember how the game ends? It
doesn't end until one or both sides decides to quit playing.

Don't go mixing apples and oranges when you are talking about issues of
ethics and morals.

Even in the case of killing to respond to an immediate threat, I still
consider killing to be wrong. Necessary, but wrong. We should not make it
right but rather we should strive to make it unnecessary.

The type of word game that you are playing is great if you want to win an
arguement. I can not deny that protection is necessary and is everyone's
right. So you win that one. If you want to talk about ethics and morals,
however, then going to the extreme doesn't help.

> I'm wondering what parents in their right mind would turn over their 4th
> and 5th grade children for this kind of thought indoctrination? The only
> thing I can conclude is that they must be nuts too.
>
> Sundy School implies some sort of church affilation. If that's true then
> I'd take a wild ass guess at Uniterian. But no wait, that implies a
> cornerstone of monotheism which you "don't go in for".
>
> Let's just say I don't understand. And I guarantee I'd have a hell of a
> time catching up with those 5th graders who have been under your influence
> for a year.
>


I teach Sunday School at the Ethical Culture Society. No god. No monthesim.
I don't teach my kids to lie down in front of trucks if that's what you are
worried about. I teach them respect for all cultures and beliefs. I teach
the same ideas of human family that you've seen me express in other posts.

I do not teach them that it is wrong to defend themselves or their loved
ones.

Personally I am very interested in peace. I want to find a way to end
conflicts. As I said before, each side will continue to play "got you last"
or the more rightous version which is something like "you got me last so I
am entitled to get you". This game will continue forever unless it is
stopped. How many generations does a conflict need to continue? Don't you
know that in any conflict, each side can give you reasons why they are right
and the other side is wrong?

Large scale conflicts don't stop unless all sides agree to stop. That is
very different than defending myself or my family and friends.

Jeff
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> I've been studying martial arts for many years. I have no problem with
>> protecting my family but there is a difference between an immediate
>> threat and a war.

>
> There is no difference at all. They are one and the same thing.
>


No Ed, they are different. The ability to make distinctions is one of the
things that we have which sets people apart from other animals.

Many animals have a fight or flight response based on stimuli which may or
may not be real danger. Humans have the ability to distinguish and judge. To
say that they are the same is to revert to animal like decision making. We
can do better.

But why am I telling you this? You aren't interested in real dialog.

>> Don't go mixing apples and oranges when you are talking about issues of
>> ethics and morals.

>
> Jeff Grippe is equating one thing with another. The Palestinian terrorists
> are not the moral equivalent of the Israeli Defense Force. One is evil,
> the other is good. This is invariably where you end up when you are not
> anchored by some kind of religious belief.


Boy talk about pots and kettles. First you equate things and then you accuse
me of doing it. Nice work Ed.

> Everyone tried to appease ****** in the 30's until it was too late and we
> had a great war instead.


Yup. That is true. Sometimes that will be the result. Not every situation is
the same as every other one, however. ****** was not acting out a centuries
old conflict (although there's room to argue that one). Even if he was, it
is still so that each situation must be taken on its own merits. War is
never the best answer although it is sometimes the only answer. It should,
however, always be the last answer.

Stop pretending to be stupid, Ed. It doesn't suit you well.
Jeff
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>


> I recognize an enemy when I see one - you don't. That is the critical
> difference that matters.


You got that right! I don't see individuals as enemy. I've been in Arab
towns in the west bank. During my trip in 2000 (which was the height of
optimism that a deal would be struck) I spent some time in Jenin and Nablus.
These are places you couldn't get near today. The people I met were curious
about us and happy to share their culture.

It is only a small group of fanatics that cause real trouble. It is our poor
behavior that helps the corrupt young minds.

So you are completely correct. I do not recognize the enemy. Too bad for me
I guess.


>
> There is something terribly wrong with the way a liberal brain functions.
>


Again I agree. I wish I had some believable concepts that I could just fall
back on instead of having to think. But that isn't me. I have to think and
reason and draw my own conclusions instead of those that you would like me
to accept. Once again, Too bad for me, I guess.

> Here is Jeff Grippe attempting to meet me half way, but I can tell he does
> not really believe it. He wants peace at any price even though a defeated
> enemy in a war is the surest way to peace.
>


I'm not trying to meet you half way. I'm expressing my opinion of the
matter. You know that I believe the things that I say. The enemys that you
see can not be defeated. There has been war after war after war and yet this
centuries old conflict persists.

Either we, as a species, are too stupid to resolve the conflict (which is
not something I entirely write off) or it simply can't be resolved by war
and we have to find another way. Which is it? I don't know and neither do
you.

Try to say something that demonstrate real thinking, Ed. This nonsense that
you've been posting is beneath you.

Jeff
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
0
Views
272
Cycling Equipment
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
T
T
Replies
0
Views
263
Road Cycling
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
T
T
Replies
0
Views
231
UK and Europe
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
T