religion and morality

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University
Religion’s dirty secret

So does Bitcoin’s having prophets, evangelists and dietary laws make it a religion or not?

As a scholar of religion, I think this is the wrong question to ask.

The dirty secret of religious studies is that there is no universal definition of what religion is. Traditions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism certainly exist and have similarities, but the idea that these are all examples of religion is relatively new.
Now, why might that be?

Perhaps because, as I suggest over and again, things like religion are in fact rooted existentially in different historical, cultural and uniquely personal contexts. Going all the way back to the caves. And what makes the modern rendition what it is revolves largely around the fact that in the modern world science has yanked "the gods" out from under most and made it all more and more about a God, the God.
The word “religion” as it’s used today – a vague category that includes certain cultural ideas and practices related to God, the afterlife or morality – arose in Europe around the 16th century. Before this, many Europeans understood that there were only three types of people in the world: Christians, Jews and heathens.
Indeed, the vaguer the better when it actually comes down to demonstrating that your religion is the only one that counts in regard to morality and immortality. Of course that's the beauty of faith though. You can believe something even when having no demonstrable reasons to.

So, for those who worship and adore Bitcoin, only those among them who also worship and adore one or another traditional God and religion have all bases covered.

Just out of curiosity, does that include anyone here?

I'm trying to imagine Ayn Rand's reaction to Bitcoin. She worshipped and adored the almighty dollar. But she was also rather adamant that you can't take those dollars with you to the other side. Not if the other side doesn't exist.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by jayjacobus »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:00 pm Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University
Religion’s dirty secret

So does Bitcoin’s having prophets, evangelists and dietary laws make it a religion or not?

As a scholar of religion, I think this is the wrong question to ask.

The dirty secret of religious studies is that there is no universal definition of what religion is. Traditions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism certainly exist and have similarities, but the idea that these are all examples of religion is relatively new.
Now, why might that be?

Perhaps because, as I suggest over and again, things like religion are in fact rooted existentially in different historical, cultural and uniquely personal contexts. Going all the way back to the caves. And what makes the modern rendition what it is revolves largely around the fact that in the modern world science has yanked "the gods" out from under most and made it all more and more about a God, the God.
The word “religion” as it’s used today – a vague category that includes certain cultural ideas and practices related to God, the afterlife or morality – arose in Europe around the 16th century. Before this, many Europeans understood that there were only three types of people in the world: Christians, Jews and heathens.
Indeed, the vaguer the better when it actually comes down to demonstrating that your religion is the only one that counts in regard to morality and immortality. Of course that's the beauty of faith though. You can believe something even when having no demonstrable reasons to.

So, for those who worship and adore Bitcoin, only those among them who also worship and adore one or another traditional God and religion have all bases covered.

Just out of curiosity, does that include anyone here?

I'm trying to imagine Ayn Rand's reaction to Bitcoin. She worshipped and adored the almighty dollar. But she was also rather adamant that you can't take those dollars with you to the other side. Not if the other side doesn't exist.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
Religion addresses mysteries. The creation is a mystery. How life came from matter is a mystery. Ghosts are a mystery. And what comes after the end of life is a mystery.

But religion is also about the control and organization of societies. Religions developed the rules of justice, morals, punishment, leadership, devotion and faith.

But also religions provide studies in the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

You may not be able to define religion, but there must be a definition.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

jayjacobus wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:48 pm
Religion addresses mysteries. The creation is a mystery. How life came from matter is a mystery. Ghosts are a mystery. And what comes after the end of life is a mystery.

But religion is also about the control and organization of societies. Religions developed the rules of justice, morals, punishment, leadership, devotion and faith.
The part that revolves around, among other things, religion being the "opiate of the people".
jayjacobus wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:48 pmBut also religions provide studies in the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
True. But in a discussions that interest me, we need a context.
jayjacobus wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:48 pmYou may not be able to define religion, but there must be a definition.
For those who believe this, let them define it.

Then bring the definition down to Earth and explore the existential implications of it given this context.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Yes, that is exactly my point! Even in regard to Libertarianism itself there are many different "schools of thought". And, again, do people arrive at their own destination here because it is possible to grasp how one ought to construe Libertarianism in the most rational manner? You sit down one day, take in all of the different [often conflicting] understandings of it and then "think it through" to the most reasonable understanding? Is that what Henry did? Or is it more likely that given the life he lived, the experiences he had, the people he met, the things he read etc., he came existentially to one frame of mind rather than another?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:33 amActually, if you spent a little time thinkin' on it, you'd find it's my point.
Note to others:

Please explain how you believe that my point above is actually his point. How is his "reason and conscience" pertaining to value judgments that come into conflict not rooted existentially in dasein?

Instead, isn't his shtick here basically to provide you with arguments he deems to be rational and then go after you if you don't think the same way? He certainly strikes me as just another a run-of-the-mill objectivist in regard to such things as abortion and bazookas.

From my frame of mind, all he does is mock my existential premises regarding "Datsun" rather than offer an in depth critique of it.
That revolves around how the capitalist economy produces a social and political "superstructure" that sustains the interest of those who own and operate the economy. Just as in a socialist economy the social and political superstructure would sustain the interests of the working class.

...think of it along the lines of Plato's Republic. The philosopher-king "thinks it all through" didactically and comes up with the most rational manner in which men and women should interact. Whereas materialists start with the actual empirical facts that revolve around a particular economy in a particular community at a particular time in history such that the means of production is owned and operated in a particular manner generating particular social and political relationships.

For example, those like Ayn Rand believed the reason nomadic tribes and hunters and gatherers and feudal communities weren't capitalist themselves is that there weren't any John Galts around back then to explain philosophically why capitalism is the most rational economic system.
And how does he respond?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:33 am The State. State-Capitalism, State-Marxism: Corporatism... 👎
Now, in regard to abortion, bazookas and slaves, go ahead, dare to suggest that how you construe "life, liberty and property" is at odds with his own.

Now, true, in regard to slavery and other extreme behaviors, there tends to be a large consensus that it is irrational and immoral. But, in a No God world, is that the same as demonstrating deontologically that slavery is in fact beyond all doubt categorically and imperatively irrational and immoral.

Sure, it's possible that this is true. "I" believe that it is wrong.

But how on Earth would one go about demonstrating it definitively in the face of all the reasons those even today give for sustaining it?

The narcissists and the sociopaths can argue that in a No God world they believe that morality revolves around sustaining their own self-gratification. Enslaving other human beings is a part of that.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:33 amAs I say, anyone can rationalize anything. Me: I'm waitin' to hear your rational (or reasonable) argument for slavery, one wherein the slaver agrees that if John Henry can go on the auction, so to can the slaver.
Again, I respond to this above. But it wasn't the "right" answer. Indeed, unless and until you react to slavery and abortion and guns as he does you will never provide anything other than the wrong answer.

It is precisely because the slaver has thought himself into believing that he is superior to the slave that he would never imagine himself being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Or because he has thought himself into believing that his own self-gratification is all the justification he needs to be a slaver.

Where's Henery's indisputable argument that this frame of mind in a No God world is necessarily, essentially and/or objectively irrational?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:50 pmexplain how you believe that my point above is actually his point?
You haven't thought it thru, bubba.

I'll give you a little more time...if you still don't get it: I'll explain to you, again.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 6:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:50 pmexplain how you believe that my point above is actually his point?
You haven't thought it thru, bubba.

I'll give you a little more time...if you still don't get it: I'll explain to you, again.
No one ever thinks anything through with you here until they think it through as you do here.

Unless, of course, you or others here can note examples where someone thought something through and prompted you to change your mind about your own convictions.

In fact, please note instances where you have changed your mind about an issue of some importance.

Few objectivists I have come upon over the years will admit that. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about one thing they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other things as well.

And the whole point of being an objectivist is to sustain the comfort and consolation embodied in the "psychology of objectivism" above.

Whereas I am always willing to admit that my own moral and political value judgments are subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. Indeed over the years my value judgments have changed dramatically. Quite a few times.

And why wouldn't they given that I like you and everyone else here live in a world teeming with contingency chance and change.

I'd ask you to think that through but you don't dare. The deeper down into the existential parameters of human identity one goes in the is/ought world the more problematic -- even precarious -- it all becomes.

You have no doubt invested years and years in acquiring and then sustaining your own precious dogmas here.

Too much is at stake now to go down the path "I" propose.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

So: from the start, and in all of my back & forth with you, bubba, across several threads, my sole purpose has been to give you what you asked for: an ethic applicable to all men, all the time, everywhere. This, I did, over and over. I gave you the ethic, and that from which even a bubba can derive the ethic. To whit...

Every man, any where, any when, knows he belongs to himself. Crazy, sane, old, young, here, there, yesterday, today, tomorrow, any man, every man, knows he is his own. And, becuz he is his own, each man, any man, every man is outraged to be treated as another's property. This is indisputable. There has never existed, nor will there ever exist, a man who, down in his bones, knows he's meant to be property, who, upon being used or leashed, is satisfied with his circumstance.

From this, as I call it, ownness, we can derive, cleanly, directly, an ethic applicable to all men.

Here's how: a man knows he is his own, he is outraged at being used, therefore he can reason other men are the same, each knowing he belongs to himself and each taking a dim view of being treated as property. This is a line of reasoning available to anyone. It's commonsensical. It requires no special wisdom or intelligence. You don't need a philo-degree or -background to grasp it. The ethic, then, is a simple codification: A man's life, liberty, and property are his and no one else's. Or, as Bahman put it: a man has all rights to himself and no rights to another.

Now, before you goes nuts and begin type-type-typing about your Datsun, ask yourself: who could have a reasonable objection to this ethic?

Obviously, the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, and the thief will object, but are their objections reasonable? Of course not. If every man, including the murder, the slaver, the rapist, and thief, knows he is his own, and can reason other men are their own, there's nothing reasonable about their objections. You, of course, will retreat to your tired Datsun, your hackneyed existential rootedness in a particular time and place. It's almost like you don't believe a man is a free will...oh, wait, you don't. Your contrary Mary had no choice, the slaver has no choice, you and me and him and her, none of us can choose.

A really neat and tidy way of self-absolution: it's not my fault!

Anyway, no, we cannot say the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, and the thief have a reasonable objection to the ethic. Their desire to do to the other that which they'd never sanction to be done to them, reveals their objections as nonsensical, as nonsense that ought be dismissed.

And, no, it matters not one jot how anyone is existentially rooted. Any man, every man, any where, any when, belongs to himself. What his whackadoodle society or culture sez or does can not negate this ownness, but only violate it. And this violation, any where, any when, is never reasonable.

This ethic works. It's clean, simple, coherent, reasonable (perhaps even rational and virtuous) and equally applicable to all. You don't have to believe in God or moral fact or natural rights to accept it (you can take it as a simple utilitarianism).

Now, if you, or anyone, has an actual, dismantling, argument, something reasonable and coherent, something sensible, please, let's have it.

But, if all you got is the same old-same old, well, you foisted up it already (and I stopped readn' that crap a while back) so save yourself the trouble, pretend you did, but don't.

Last thing: your point actually bein' my point...

You were quick to take all the strains of libertarianism as proof of Datsun. What you missed is: yeah, there's a lotta different thinkin' among libertarians about what that practically means, but all libertarians are united by a simple understanding. Some express that understanding as the NAP, others as the Golden Rule, and few as natural rights. It's the understanding that each man is free, that it's natural and normal for him to be free, and that no matter how many paths there are to the peak, there's only one peak.

My point, not yours.

'nuff said.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:25 am So: from the start, and in all of my back & forth with you, bubba, across several threads, my sole purpose has been to give you what you asked for: an ethic applicable to all men, all the time, everywhere. This, I did, over and over. I gave you the ethic, and that from which even a bubba can derive the ethic. To whit...

Every man, any where, any when, knows he belongs to himself. Crazy, sane, old, young, here, there, yesterday, today, tomorrow, any man, every man, knows he is his own. And, becuz he is his own, each man, any man, every man is outraged to be treated as another's property. This is indisputable. There has never existed, nor will there ever exist, a man who, down in his bones, knows he's meant to be property, who, upon being used or leashed, is satisfied with his circumstance.

From this, as I call it, ownness, we can derive, cleanly, directly, an ethic applicable to all men.

Here's how: a man knows he is his own, he is outraged at being used, therefore he can reason other men are the same, each knowing he belongs to himself and each taking a dim view of being treated as property. This is a line of reasoning available to anyone. It's commonsensical. It requires no special wisdom or intelligence. You don't need a philo-degree or -background to grasp it. The ethic, then, is a simple codification: A man's life, liberty, and property are his and no one else's. Or, as Bahman put it: a man has all rights to himself and no rights to another.

Now, before you goes nuts and begin type-type-typing about your Datsun, ask yourself: who could have a reasonable objection to this ethic?

Obviously, the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, and the thief will object, but are their objections reasonable? Of course not. If every man, including the murder, the slaver, the rapist, and thief, knows he is his own, and can reason other men are their own, there's nothing reasonable about their objections. You, of course, will retreat to your tired Datsun, your hackneyed existential rootedness in a particular time and place. It's almost like you don't believe a man is a free will...oh, wait, you don't. Your contrary Mary had no choice, the slaver has no choice, you and me and him and her, none of us can choose.

A really neat and tidy way of self-absolution: it's not my fault!

Anyway, no, we cannot say the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, and the thief have a reasonable objection to the ethic. Their desire to do to the other that which they'd never sanction to be done to them, reveals their objections as nonsensical, as nonsense that ought be dismissed.

And, no, it matters not one jot how anyone is existentially rooted. Any man, every man, any where, any when, belongs to himself. What his whackadoodle society or culture sez or does can not negate this ownness, but only violate it. And this violation, any where, any when, is never reasonable.

This ethic works. It's clean, simple, coherent, reasonable (perhaps even rational and virtuous) and equally applicable to all. You don't have to believe in God or moral fact or natural rights to accept it (you can take it a a simple utilitarianism).

Now, if you, or anyone, has an actual, dismantling, argument, something reasonable and coherent, something sensible, please, let's have it.

But, if all you got is the same old-same old, well, you foisted up it already (and I stopped readn' that crap a while back) so save yourself the trouble, pretend you did, but don't.

Last thing: your point actually bein' my point...

You were quick to take all the strains of libertarianism as proof of Datsun. What you missed is: yeah, there's a lotta different thinkin' among libertarians about what that practically means, but all libertarians are united by a simple understanding. Some express that understanding as the NAP, others as the Golden Rule, and few as natural rights. It's the understanding that each man is free, that it's natural and normal for him to be free, and that no matter how many paths there are to the peak, there's only one peak.

My point, not yours.

'nuff said.
Yeah, your point indeed.

Now, once again, here is my point:
No one ever thinks anything through with you here until they think it through as you do here.

Unless, of course, you or others here can note examples where someone thought something through and prompted you to change your mind about your own convictions.

In fact, please note instances where you have changed your mind about an issue of some importance.

Few objectivists I have come upon over the years will admit that. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about one thing they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other things as well.

And the whole point of being an objectivist is to sustain the comfort and consolation embodied in the "psychology of objectivism" above.

Whereas I am always willing to admit that my own moral and political value judgments are subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. Indeed over the years my value judgments have changed dramatically. Quite a few times.

And why wouldn't they given that I like you and everyone else here live in a world teeming with contingency chance and change.

I'd ask you to think that through but you don't dare. The deeper down into the existential parameters of human identity one goes in the is/ought world the more problematic -- even precarious -- it all becomes.

You have no doubt invested years and years in acquiring and then sustaining your own precious dogmas here.

Too much is at stake now to go down the path "I" propose.
How about actually addressing it this time.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

:zzz:

try harder, bubba

mebbe sumthin' new, from you, will perk me up
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by Walker »

hq wrote:A really neat and tidy way of self-absolution: it's not my fault!
Interesting. I haven’t followed the thread, but this jumped out because, that’s not really the way of things.

Oh sure, folks will say it’s not their fault, as a legal strategy, or as a way to maintain a fantasy narrative. Folks who have the money and don’t want to deal with the prosecutor, use this strategy. Folks who can resist the momentum of being railroaded by corrupt prosecutors, or who have the money and/or publicity to buy themselves a dream-team, may use the strategy of, it’s not my fault!

But morally, this is not at all the Christian way ... and I’m not even an expert in Christianity.

A human cannot lie to God and because of that, the day dawns for everyone when one can’t lie to oneself anymore … and when that happens reality transcends the contradictions of language, that get mistaken for the way things are.

- Yes, those sins you committed are your fault.
- Yes, you had to commit them.
- These two statements do not contradict reality.

:)
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:47 am :zzz:

try harder, bubba

mebbe sumthin' new, from you, will perk me up
Of course, when it comes to you actually addressing the points I raise here...
No one ever thinks anything through with you here until they think it through as you do here.

Unless, of course, you or others here can note examples where someone thought something through and prompted you to change your mind about your own convictions.

In fact, please note instances where you have changed your mind about an issue of some importance.

Few objectivists I have come upon over the years will admit that. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about one thing they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other things as well.

And the whole point of being an objectivist is to sustain the comfort and consolation embodied in the "psychology of objectivism" above.

Whereas I am always willing to admit that my own moral and political value judgments are subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. Indeed over the years my value judgments have changed dramatically. Quite a few times.

And why wouldn't they given that I like you and everyone else here live in a world teeming with contingency chance and change.

I'd ask you to think that through but you don't dare. The deeper down into the existential parameters of human identity one goes in the is/ought world the more problematic -- even precarious -- it all becomes.

You have no doubt invested years and years in acquiring and then sustaining your own precious dogmas here.

Too much is at stake now to go down the path "I" propose.
...it's not a matter of you trying harder but of your refusal to try at all.

And I surmise you don't because a part of you does in fact grasp what is at stake for "your own precious dogmas" if you shift your thinking from what you believe to why you believe what you do given the life that you lived.

Just how profoundly problematic "I" is in the is/ought world.

Start here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...if you dare.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:57 pmOf course, when it comes to you actually addressing the points I raise here... ...it's not a matter of you trying harder but of your refusal to try at all.
Not my job to help you advertise Datsun. Nor am I obligated to splay myself out for dissection.

I made my point without your help: do the same, bubba.

Or, be quiet.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:19 pmI haven’t followed the thread
Outside of my always entertainn' posts, you ain't missed a damn thing.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:05 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:57 pmOf course, when it comes to you actually addressing the points I raise here... ...it's not a matter of you trying harder but of your refusal to try at all.
Not my job to help you advertise Datsun.
Huh?

I'm not asking you to help me "advertise" dasein, I'm asking you to critique it. I'm suggesting that you make an argument given a particular context in which you attempt to demonstrate that the arguments I make in the threads above are not reasonable.

That you are actually able to think yourself into believing that you already have accomplished this by avoiding the points I raise here...
No one ever thinks anything through with you here until they think it through as you do here.

Unless, of course, you or others here can note examples where someone thought something through and prompted you to change your mind about your own convictions.

In fact, please note instances where you have changed your mind about an issue of some importance.

Few objectivists I have come upon over the years will admit that. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about one thing they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other things as well.

And the whole point of being an objectivist is to sustain the comfort and consolation embodied in the "psychology of objectivism" above.

Whereas I am always willing to admit that my own moral and political value judgments are subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. Indeed over the years my value judgments have changed dramatically. Quite a few times.

And why wouldn't they given that I like you and everyone else here live in a world teeming with contingency chance and change.

I'd ask you to think that through but you don't dare. The deeper down into the existential parameters of human identity one goes in the is/ought world the more problematic -- even precarious -- it all becomes.

You have no doubt invested years and years in acquiring and then sustaining your own precious dogmas here.

Too much is at stake now to go down the path "I" propose.
...is my point now.

Indeed, now all you do is to give me yet more opportunities to bring it up.

Has anyone here ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you?

How is this...

"Few objectivists I have come upon over the years will admit that. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about one thing they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other things as well."

...not applicable to you? To all of us?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

I'm asking you to critique it.

No thanks...not interested.

As I say: my sole purpose has been to give you what you asked for: an ethic applicable to all men, all the time, everywhere. This, I did, over and over. I gave you the ethic, and that from which even a bubba can derive the ethic.

Your datsun, that's your worry, not mine.
Post Reply