The entire nation of France will drop dead tomorrow unless you kill your neighbor - GoFuckYourself.com

u-Bob · 08-13-2012, 10:09 AM

I read this article this afternoon and given how political discussions on GFY usually quickly evolve into name calling, people taking emotional "us vs them" positions and digging in their heels, a refusal to accept the arguments of "the other party" not because they are wrong but because "the other party made the argument",... I figured those with an open mind would find it useful or challenging. After all, how can we ever better ourselves if we never challenge ourselves?

--copy/paste:

In entry-level philosophy class, a professor will often present the a scenario that seems to challenge the students' perspective on morality.

The argument runs something as follows: "The entire nation of France will drop dead tomorrow unless you kill your neighbor who has only one day to live. What do you do?"

Or "You could eliminate cancer by pressing a button that also kills one healthy person. Do you do so?"

The purpose is to create a moral dilemma. The questions pit your moral rejection of murder against your moral guilt for not acting to save millions of lives.

In reality, the questions are a sham that cannot be honestly answered. They postulate a parallel world in which the rules of reality, like cause and effect, have been dramatically changed so that pushing a button cures cancer. The postulated world seems to operate more on magic than reality.

Because my moral code is based on the reality of the existing world, I don't know what I would do if those rules no longer operated. I presume my morality would be different, so my actions would be as well.

As absurd as they are, these are considered to be the "tough" moral questions. In grappling with them, some students come to believe that being true to morality requires the violation of morality in a profound manner; after all, there is no greater violation than the deliberate murder of another human being.

But how can the life of one outweigh those of millions in your hands? At this point, morality becomes a numbers game, a matter of cost-benefit analysis, rather than of principle. This is not an expansion of morality, as the professor claims, but the manufacture of a conflict that destroys morality. In its place is left a moral gray zone, a vacuum into which utilitarianism rushes.

Suddenly, it becomes obvious that the good of the many outweighs the murder of the one. The collective outweighs the individual. The majority outranks the minority. Hard "factual" utilitarianism is preferable to gray, inconsistent morality.

The philosophical questions lead directly into politics because murdering a person for the greater good is not merely a moral question, but also one of individual rights. If you accept the morality of doing so, you have also accepted the political propriety of murdering an innocent human being.

Phrased in political terms, nonhypothetical versions of the philosophy question come up often. For example, "Should the rich or businessmen (the few) be heavily taxed to provide national health care (for the many)?" Here, a greater good is pitted against individual rights. But more than this, individual rights of two groups conflict, with the rights of a resisting minority viewed as a barrier to the "rights" or entitlements of "the others." Businessmen are deemed to have no right to their earnings if it prevents the majority from having health care.

This politically manufactured conflict is as absurd as the philosophically manufactured one.

The 19th-century British individualist Auberon Herbert addressed the issue of the "good of the greatest number." He stated, "There never was invented a more specious and misleading phrase. The Devil was in his most subtle and ingenious mood when he slipped this phrase into the brains of men. I hold it to be utterly false in essentials."

Why is it false? Because the phrase assumes as a given that a higher morality requires the violation of individual rights. Or in Herbert's words, "It assumes that there are two opposed 'goods,' and that the one good is to be sacrificed to the other good -- but in the first place, this is not true, for liberty is the one good, open to all, and requiring no sacrifice of others, and secondly, this false opposition (where no real opposition exists) of two different goods means perpetual war between men." [Emphasis added.]

Herbert is relying on two intimately related theories: first, "the universality of rights"; and, second, "a natural harmony of interests." The universality of rights means that every individual has the same natural rights to an equal degree.

Race, gender, religion or other secondary characteristics do not matter; only the primary characteristic of being human is important. A natural harmony of interests means that the peaceful exercise of one person's individual rights does not harm the similar exercise by any other person.

My freedom of conscience or speech does not negate my neighbor's. The peaceful jurisdiction I claim over my own body does not diminish anyone else's claim of self-ownership. Indeed, the more I assert the principle of self-ownership, the stronger and more secure that principle becomes for everyone.

Only in a world where rights are not universal, where people's peaceful behavior conflicts, does it make sense to accept the need to sacrifice individuals to a greater good. This is not the real world, but one that has been manufactured for political purposes.

Herbert explained a key assumption that underlies this faux world: the acceptance of the "greater good" itself. He asked, "Why are two men to be sacrificed to three men? We all agree that the three men are not to be sacrificed to the two men; but why -- as a matter of moral right -- are we to do what is almost as bad and immoral and shortsighted -- sacrifice the two men to the three men? Why sacrifice any one... when liberty does away with all necessity of sacrifice?"

Herbert denied the validity of "this law of numbers, which... is what we really mean when we speak of State authority...under which three men are made absolutely supreme, and two men are made absolutely dependent." Instead of accepting the law of numbers as an expression of greater good, Herbert viewed it as a convenient social construct, calling it "a purely conventional law, a mere rude, half-savage expedient, which cannot stand the criticism of reason, or be defended... by considerations of universal justice. You can only plead expediency of it."

To whom was the social construct of conflict convenient? Why would a faux world of inherent conflict be created? By solving the manufactured problems, a great deal of power was transferred from individuals to a ruling class.

Herbert wrote, "The tendency of all great complicated machines is to make a ruling class, for they alone understand the machine, and they alone are skilled in the habit of guiding it; and the tendency of a ruling expert class, when once established, is that at critical moments they do pretty nearly what they like with the nation..."

Rather than solve a social problem, the ruling class had a devastating effect on the welfare of common people, who became "a puzzled flock of sheep waiting for the sheepdog to drive us through the gate." Ironically, by claiming the collective was greater, the few were able to assume control over the many. The "greater good" devolved to whatever served the interests of the ruling class.

But the process can be reversed. It requires "individualizing" the collective and the nation so that "will, conscience and judgment" can return to every person.

At that point, society offers people "the noblest present" and the greatest benefit possible -- "their own personal responsibility."

--end copy/paste

From "The Myth of the Greater Good"
by Wendy McElroy

xNetworx · 08-13-2012, 10:13 AM

u-Bob · 08-13-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamBoss

tbh, was expecting that.

Scott McD · 08-13-2012, 10:16 AM

So, who am i killing here? Cliffnotes?

xNetworx · 08-13-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

tbh, was expecting that.

Haha. I like your posts. This one didn't grab me tho

Webmaster Advertising · 08-13-2012, 10:34 AM

Cure cancer, by pushing a button but one healthy person dies v.s;
Kill of all France if i didnt kill my neighbor...

Id push the button and have my neighbor live, simple solution to two of the worlds leading problems...

No more cancer and no more smelly frog eating, hairy pitted Frenchies...

epitome · 08-13-2012, 10:36 AM

Sorry but if only one person dies to cure cancer I'm doing it and wouldn't feel bad about it.

helterskelter808 · 08-13-2012, 10:39 AM

If we can get cheaper gas by killing brown people, should we do it?

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 10:41 AM

Good stuff. I wonder how many people will actually THINK in depth about what they are reading....

.

Webmaster Advertising · 08-13-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

If we can get cheaper gas by killing brown people, should we do it?

Do we really need a reason to do that? ;)

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 10:44 AM

Which reminds me u-bob. Do you know this quote? (too long to post here I think)

http://www.dailypaul.com/133313/fran...atlas-shrugged

.

CaptainHowdy · 08-13-2012, 10:45 AM

That's an easy one ... who the hell does not hate its neighbour to death??

Brujah · 08-13-2012, 10:56 AM

Interesting article but not just with taxes, the same liberties could be applied just as equally to abortion, gay marriage, legalized marijuana, etc...

TheLegacy · 08-13-2012, 11:42 AM

The moral problem isn't with me it's the person who created the equation. Yet one problem solved does not necessarily mean another won't be created in it's place - in short two wrongs don't make a right.

But what can bring this more to light is asking (and it has happened), If your beautiful wife was giving birth to your only child - and they told you that if she has the baby she would die so it's your choice to get rid of the baby now or your wife. Which would you choose?

Soldiers face this daily when they go out along with police - do you enter into a building or place where you could die and then your wife/kids are left alone for the rest of their life or stop a dealer or terrorist for future activity? amazing me when cops and soldiers decide to go in and do their job risking their families future.

martinsc · 08-13-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamBoss

Triple-A · 08-13-2012, 12:36 PM

One of my neighbours is a total cunt... we've had to install high tech cctv to keep an eye on this fucker (long story)

However, kill him or all of France...

If the French died off and I could move there and the place was unscathed then France, populated only by Brits would be the best of both worlds

We already own the ski resorts and buy up loads of country properties, so would be the next logical step.

PR_Glen · 08-13-2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Good stuff. I wonder how many people will actually THINK in depth about what they are reading....

.

what am I missing? save the many for the sacrifice of the few works for me.

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

what am I missing? save the many for the sacrifice of the few works for me.

Like I thought....

What it is saying is that the choice is a fallacy. That in real life that kind of choice does not actually exist. Instead this fallacy is used to undermine and destroy personal liberty and property rights.

For goodness sake, it's right there if you actually READ it.

*sigh*.... You can lead a horse to water....

.

Brujah · 08-13-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

*sigh*.... You can lead a horse to water....

You don't just want to lead the horse to water, you want the horse to have the same beliefs and values you do. He doesn't. His opinion is just as valid as yours. If I understand him correctly, he doesn't care as much about your personal liberty or property to the extent that you have an obscene abundance and won't give back a small percentage so that some of the community isn't homeless, hungry, sick and dying, etc... It's called compassion.

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

You don't just want to lead the horse to water, you want the horse to have the same beliefs and values you do. He doesn't. His opinion is just as valid as yours. If I understand him correctly, he doesn't care as much about your personal liberty or property to the extent that you have an obscene abundance and won't give back a small percentage so that some of the community isn't homeless, hungry, sick and dying, etc... It's called compassion.

Actually, I was referring to him not comprehending the points of the article, nothing to do with whether he agreed with it or not.

And by the way. Where does "give" come into it? Where is the agruement ageinst charity in the artticle?

If I come to your house and take your stuff, and then go give it to someone else, is that what you call "coimpassion"? If so, give me your address, I know some people in need, and I can be really really compassionate with your stuff.

.

PR_Glen · 08-13-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Like I thought....

What it is saying is that the choice is a fallacy. That in real life that kind of choice does not actually exist. Instead this fallacy is used to undermine and destroy personal liberty and property rights.

For goodness sake, it's right there if you actually READ it.

*sigh*.... You can lead a horse to water....

.

nice try fuck nuts..

the question was set up logically in form so the answer should be answered in that form. You coming up with a philosophy 101 answer doesn't necessarily make it the right one.

Nietszche and Hobbes would both agree with my answer, but chances are you didn't read any of their books and just wikipedia everything like most morons who pretend to be educated do.

good luck with your fallacy of an education.

Brujah · 08-13-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

If I come to your house and take your stuff, and then go give it to someone else, is that what you call "coimpassion"? If so, give me your address, I know some people in need, and I can be really really compassionate with your stuff.

You really aren't responding to anything I've said. Instead, you made up your own extreme scenario. I said things like obscene abundance and small percentage. You respond with threats and hostility.

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 08:21 PM

Im neither hostile to you, nor am i making threats.I'm making a rhetorical point. Please re-read my post. Notice that i did answer your points. The article did not refer to giving,it referred to taking. And who will decide what is obscene? Who will decide what is small? To 60 percent of the world, what YOU have is obscene, and to them, 50% might be considere

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 08:25 PM

Im neither hostile to you, nor am i making threats.I'm making a rhetorical point. Please re-read my post. Notice that i did answer your points. The article did not refer to giving,it referred to taking. And who will decide what is obscene? Who will decide what is small? To 60 percent of the world, what YOU have is obscene, and to them, 50% of what you have could be considered small. In the end it is about someone else deciding to take what you have and give it to someone else. This is not "compassion". Do you consider it so? If you come to my house, take what i have, and give it to someone else, do you consider your actions "compassionate"?

mce · 08-13-2012, 08:33 PM

Basic philo question

If you don't kill, another person will be killed.......

sperbonzo · 08-13-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

nice try fuck nuts..

Nietszche and Hobbes would both agree with my answer, but chances are you didn't read any of their books and just wikipedia everything like most morons who pretend to be educated do.

good luck with your fallacy of an education.

Apparently your education leads you to insult me personally and make assumptions about my education based on no information at all. Simply because one school of thought would agree with your ideas that a majority of people deciding that taking from a minority to benefit a majority doesnt make it "truth". Under that method of thought slavery can easily be justified. After all, if a minority of people can be used to provide life slaving labor to a majority, then that works for you.

08-13-2012, 10:09 AM	#1
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	The entire nation of France will drop dead tomorrow unless you kill your neighbor I read this article this afternoon and given how political discussions on GFY usually quickly evolve into name calling, people taking emotional "us vs them" positions and digging in their heels, a refusal to accept the arguments of "the other party" not because they are wrong but because "the other party made the argument",... I figured those with an open mind would find it useful or challenging. After all, how can we ever better ourselves if we never challenge ourselves? --copy/paste: In entry-level philosophy class, a professor will often present the a scenario that seems to challenge the students' perspective on morality. The argument runs something as follows: "The entire nation of France will drop dead tomorrow unless you kill your neighbor who has only one day to live. What do you do?" Or "You could eliminate cancer by pressing a button that also kills one healthy person. Do you do so?" The purpose is to create a moral dilemma. The questions pit your moral rejection of murder against your moral guilt for not acting to save millions of lives. In reality, the questions are a sham that cannot be honestly answered. They postulate a parallel world in which the rules of reality, like cause and effect, have been dramatically changed so that pushing a button cures cancer. The postulated world seems to operate more on magic than reality. Because my moral code is based on the reality of the existing world, I don't know what I would do if those rules no longer operated. I presume my morality would be different, so my actions would be as well. As absurd as they are, these are considered to be the "tough" moral questions. In grappling with them, some students come to believe that being true to morality requires the violation of morality in a profound manner; after all, there is no greater violation than the deliberate murder of another human being. But how can the life of one outweigh those of millions in your hands? At this point, morality becomes a numbers game, a matter of cost-benefit analysis, rather than of principle. This is not an expansion of morality, as the professor claims, but the manufacture of a conflict that destroys morality. In its place is left a moral gray zone, a vacuum into which utilitarianism rushes. Suddenly, it becomes obvious that the good of the many outweighs the murder of the one. The collective outweighs the individual. The majority outranks the minority. Hard "factual" utilitarianism is preferable to gray, inconsistent morality. The philosophical questions lead directly into politics because murdering a person for the greater good is not merely a moral question, but also one of individual rights. If you accept the morality of doing so, you have also accepted the political propriety of murdering an innocent human being. Phrased in political terms, nonhypothetical versions of the philosophy question come up often. For example, "Should the rich or businessmen (the few) be heavily taxed to provide national health care (for the many)?" Here, a greater good is pitted against individual rights. But more than this, individual rights of two groups conflict, with the rights of a resisting minority viewed as a barrier to the "rights" or entitlements of "the others." Businessmen are deemed to have no right to their earnings if it prevents the majority from having health care. This politically manufactured conflict is as absurd as the philosophically manufactured one. The 19th-century British individualist Auberon Herbert addressed the issue of the "good of the greatest number." He stated, "There never was invented a more specious and misleading phrase. The Devil was in his most subtle and ingenious mood when he slipped this phrase into the brains of men. I hold it to be utterly false in essentials." Why is it false? Because the phrase assumes as a given that a higher morality requires the violation of individual rights. Or in Herbert's words, "It assumes that there are two opposed 'goods,' and that the one good is to be sacrificed to the other good -- but in the first place, this is not true, for liberty is the one good, open to all, and requiring no sacrifice of others, and secondly, this false opposition (where no real opposition exists) of two different goods means perpetual war between men." [Emphasis added.] Herbert is relying on two intimately related theories: first, "the universality of rights"; and, second, "a natural harmony of interests." The universality of rights means that every individual has the same natural rights to an equal degree. Race, gender, religion or other secondary characteristics do not matter; only the primary characteristic of being human is important. A natural harmony of interests means that the peaceful exercise of one person's individual rights does not harm the similar exercise by any other person. My freedom of conscience or speech does not negate my neighbor's. The peaceful jurisdiction I claim over my own body does not diminish anyone else's claim of self-ownership. Indeed, the more I assert the principle of self-ownership, the stronger and more secure that principle becomes for everyone. Only in a world where rights are not universal, where people's peaceful behavior conflicts, does it make sense to accept the need to sacrifice individuals to a greater good. This is not the real world, but one that has been manufactured for political purposes. Herbert explained a key assumption that underlies this faux world: the acceptance of the "greater good" itself. He asked, "Why are two men to be sacrificed to three men? We all agree that the three men are not to be sacrificed to the two men; but why -- as a matter of moral right -- are we to do what is almost as bad and immoral and shortsighted -- sacrifice the two men to the three men? Why sacrifice any one... when liberty does away with all necessity of sacrifice?" Herbert denied the validity of "this law of numbers, which... is what we really mean when we speak of State authority...under which three men are made absolutely supreme, and two men are made absolutely dependent." Instead of accepting the law of numbers as an expression of greater good, Herbert viewed it as a convenient social construct, calling it "a purely conventional law, a mere rude, half-savage expedient, which cannot stand the criticism of reason, or be defended... by considerations of universal justice. You can only plead expediency of it." To whom was the social construct of conflict convenient? Why would a faux world of inherent conflict be created? By solving the manufactured problems, a great deal of power was transferred from individuals to a ruling class. Herbert wrote, "The tendency of all great complicated machines is to make a ruling class, for they alone understand the machine, and they alone are skilled in the habit of guiding it; and the tendency of a ruling expert class, when once established, is that at critical moments they do pretty nearly what they like with the nation..." Rather than solve a social problem, the ruling class had a devastating effect on the welfare of common people, who became "a puzzled flock of sheep waiting for the sheepdog to drive us through the gate." Ironically, by claiming the collective was greater, the few were able to assume control over the many. The "greater good" devolved to whatever served the interests of the ruling class. But the process can be reversed. It requires "individualizing" the collective and the nation so that "will, conscience and judgment" can return to every person. At that point, society offers people "the noblest present" and the greatest benefit possible -- "their own personal responsibility." --end copy/paste From "The Myth of the Greater Good" by Wendy McElroy

08-13-2012, 10:16 AM	#4
Scott McD Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 67,795	So, who am i killing here? Cliffnotes? __________________ I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!

08-13-2012, 10:41 AM	#9
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	Good stuff. I wonder how many people will actually THINK in depth about what they are reading.... . __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

08-13-2012, 10:44 AM	#11
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	Which reminds me u-bob. Do you know this quote? (too long to post here I think) http://www.dailypaul.com/133313/fran...atlas-shrugged . __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

08-13-2012, 10:45 AM	#12
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,207	That's an easy one ... who the hell does not hate its neighbour to death?? __________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

08-13-2012, 10:13 AM	#2
xNetworx So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Whore Island Posts: 14,445

08-13-2012, 10:34 AM	#6
Webmaster Advertising So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,360	Cure cancer, by pushing a button but one healthy person dies v.s; Kill of all France if i didnt kill my neighbor... Id push the button and have my neighbor live, simple solution to two of the worlds leading problems... No more cancer and no more smelly frog eating, hairy pitted Frenchies...

08-13-2012, 10:36 AM	#7
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Sorry but if only one person dies to cure cancer I'm doing it and wouldn't feel bad about it.

08-13-2012, 10:39 AM	#8
helterskelter808 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,405	If we can get cheaper gas by killing brown people, should we do it?

08-13-2012, 10:56 AM	#13
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Interesting article but not just with taxes, the same liberties could be applied just as equally to abortion, gay marriage, legalized marijuana, etc... __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

08-13-2012, 11:42 AM	#14
TheLegacy SEO Connoisseur Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brantford, Ontario Posts: 16,549	The moral problem isn't with me it's the person who created the equation. Yet one problem solved does not necessarily mean another won't be created in it's place - in short two wrongs don't make a right. But what can bring this more to light is asking (and it has happened), If your beautiful wife was giving birth to your only child - and they told you that if she has the baby she would die so it's your choice to get rid of the baby now or your wife. Which would you choose? Soldiers face this daily when they go out along with police - do you enter into a building or place where you could die and then your wife/kids are left alone for the rest of their life or stop a dealer or terrorist for future activity? amazing me when cops and soldiers decide to go in and do their job risking their families future. __________________ SEO Connoisseur Microsoft Teams: Robert Warren SEO Telegram: @TheLegacy54 RobertWarrenSEO.com

08-13-2012, 12:36 PM	#16
Triple-A Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Hartford CT Posts: 535	One of my neighbours is a total cunt... we've had to install high tech cctv to keep an eye on this fucker (long story) However, kill him or all of France... If the French died off and I could move there and the place was unscathed then France, populated only by Brits would be the best of both worlds We already own the ski resorts and buy up loads of country properties, so would be the next logical step. __________________ Triple A Spanking - AAAspanking Affiliate Program Contact me if you want to help promote our niche

08-13-2012, 08:21 PM	#23
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	Im neither hostile to you, nor am i making threats.I'm making a rhetorical point. Please re-read my post. Notice that i did answer your points. The article did not refer to giving,it referred to taking. And who will decide what is obscene? Who will decide what is small? To 60 percent of the world, what YOU have is obscene, and to them, 50% might be considere __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

08-13-2012, 08:25 PM	#24
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,748	Im neither hostile to you, nor am i making threats.I'm making a rhetorical point. Please re-read my post. Notice that i did answer your points. The article did not refer to giving,it referred to taking. And who will decide what is obscene? Who will decide what is small? To 60 percent of the world, what YOU have is obscene, and to them, 50% of what you have could be considered small. In the end it is about someone else deciding to take what you have and give it to someone else. This is not "compassion". Do you consider it so? If you come to my house, take what i have, and give it to someone else, do you consider your actions "compassionate"? __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

08-13-2012, 08:33 PM	#25
mce Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: All Over Posts: 3,917	Basic philo question If you don't kill, another person will be killed....... __________________ Pay Virtual Assistants Based on RESULTS instead of TIME STOP getting FUCKED IN THE ASS by your VA