Just like money tends to land into the hands of the greedy, power tends to land in the hands of those who desire to dominate the universe. It's the ambition, it's the person who wakes up every day thinking "I want to be the richest man on the planet" or "I want to own planet earth and patent it", this sort of person will rule the world, not the ordinary individual or even the extraordinary.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is America (US) ready for a black president?
- Thread starter MySpace
- Start date
Just like money tends to land into the hands of the greedy, power tends to land in the hands of those who desire to dominate the universe. It's the ambition, it's the person who wakes up every day thinking "I want to be the richest man on the planet" or "I want to own planet earth and patent it", this sort of person will rule the world, not the ordinary individual or even the extraordinary.
Just like money tends to land into the hands of the greedy, power tends to land in the hands of those who desire to dominate the universe. It's the ambition, it's the person who wakes up every day thinking "I want to be the richest man on the planet" or "I want to own planet earth and patent it", this sort of person will rule the world, not the ordinary individual or even the extraordinary.
You have a problem learning. No, its not dumfuk. What person rules the fuking world on just ambition alone???? They eventually lose it. Did you not comprehend that it takes more than just the fuking thought to keep it. Your an egotistical ass hiding behind a fake facade of equality, the worst and most disgusting kind.
...(coughs). Just a thought. America will never assimilate culturaly if you look at the foundations of the land. In fact America was build by spilled rival blood. Native Americans are the indeginous people of America, and even they had more divisions in tribes than humanly possible. Then came the Spanish, then follwed the Frenchies, then sailed the Brits. Right from genesis to inception, to declaration of independece, its been segregation and cultural diversity. That country is one weird country.
Because cacausians are more intelligent, timetraveller calls it domination, I say it takes intelligence to dominate. However the gap is bridging everyday with technology and publications. You don't even have to go to school to learn the latest computer programs these days, just buy a PC, log on to sciforums, and the good guys at Computer science and culture will walk you through.
No you white stank degenerate evil grease blubber. Its because you are the majority in america. Majority control. That doesn't take intelligence, thats easy. And if your so intelligent, why are so many dying of cancer, side effects from shitty pills, etc?? Because you are not really intelligent, very few are truly intelligent. Your cleverness, extreme manipulative abilites or smarts has its blind spots. Therefore your just a better ratfink. If you are so smart your population would have higher iqs and thats sadly not the case.
I really don't give a rats sh*t what you think because i think you are an egotistical and deceitful person. You say all the right things but you seem disingenuous.
You are judging me by how I seem?! That sounds delusional! You read what I wrote, judge it.
I said traditionally it is prejudiced to expect foreigners to adapt to a caucasian culture and disembrace who they are.
They are human first, they are not cultural products or objects. If they view themselves as an object of their culture, as a "white" or a "black" or whatever they claim to be, before anything else, why should I care? I say we are American first, period, all of us. This means if you are here, you can either be a half American, by calling yourself European American, African American, Asian American, etc, or you can just be an American. I'm an American.I'm an American culturally, genetically, religiously, and I don't really know any other homeland. If you are talking about people who just got off the boat, alright, these people can be excluded because they are a new generation of immigrants, but if you come here you should be expected to assimilate. Being American is not free, the cost is assimilation, and love for the whole of Americas being, even if there are aspects of it that you dislike.
BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT IS FOR NOW UNLESS YOU STAY WITH YOUR OWN KIND. I fuking walk out my door everyday and that is what I see because it is, businesses, jobs, architecture, media, society etc are all controlled by white people.
I don't see it like this. I see the world controlled by good or bad people, I see businesses, jobs, architecture, media and society, controlled by either good or bad people, but I do not see them as white or black people. There are good white people, by the millions, havent you met them? Some of them are defending you right now, protecting the country. Some of them are providing jobs to people like you, and you have everyone from teachers, to police officers, who are white, and good. Can't you see the world is good and bad, not white and black?
Even the asian restaurants are geared to the white consumer.
That's because of numbers, there are more white people in this country than Asians or Black people. It has nothing to do with racism, it's profitability. Hiphop is geared toward the White cusotmer too. People sell to whoever has the most customers. In these situations, it just happens to be that White people will buy anything, because theres so many. Walmart exploits the hell out of this. Walmarts are usually built in white communities, in rural or suburban areas, not urban ghettos, so what? Do you want Walmart? The corporations don't care, they exploit us ALL.
That is not prejudicial to cite that observation, that is a fact! YOU are being prejudicial and disgusting by pretending you can pull the wool over foreigners eyes with your fake political correct bullsh*t!
Stop thinking of yourself as a permanent foreigner, thats your problem. If you view the world in white and black, you'll be a foreigner forever because you will ALWAYS look foreign to someone else. If you view the world in good and bad, well, I think then you'll have a more accurate view of the world itself, because in the end it won't matter how you look, only what you do matters. Just because a lot of people have the black and white view of the world, it does not make them correct, it means they have a 2 dimensional view of a 3 dimensional world, they see the world as 2 dimenional objects based on skin tones and what they see with their eyes. This is not accurate, but thats how the masses see the world. If you have not noticed, I'm not the masses.
As a matter of fact, no one is talking any language but ENGLISH you fuker in western countries. Of course they do as they should. But I was specifically referring to america, the immigrant country.
America is not the "immigrant" country, yes we are all immigrants, but not fully immigrants anymore. Why? The longer you've been here, the more native American genes you have, the more mixed you become, the more American you become, until eventually you can't go back to some other land, this land becomes your homeland because your ancestors were here, and in some cases if you have a native American ancestor or ancestors, you have just as much history and ancestory here as you do anywhere else. Where do you expect Latinos to go? Back to Spain? Where do you expect the majority of Americans to go, who have American genes? How would a person decide which country in Europe, in Africa, in Asia or wherever to go back to now that they have ancestors in all these different places due to America being immigrant country as you call it?
And the more immigrants you accept into your country to work, pay taxes and contribute, the more it is your obligation to represent them and their voice in kind. They are no longer your guest. You want a country where everyone speaks the same language???????????????? Really?????????? Why are you so afraid they might be speaking another language???? Are there japanese coming up to you saying sayonara?? Damn that thought must be scary. You want this and you want that. You should hear yourself.
In my opinion it should be earned. When an American family buys their first house, then they are American. But if you are talking about, people who come here, who don't try to get ahead, who don't try to get an education, and who commit crimes and stuff, these people are criminals. Citizenship should definately be earned, if you don't have any quality standards it's not going to be good for our country. We should allow people to come accross the border, and we should track each person who comes, and if they break laws and are destructive we should send them back. We do not need to invite thugs. So I'm for immigration of Good people who want to make America better, and it does not matter what they look like, it matters how they live and what they are doing with their life.
You also got cottage cheese for brains if you think that technology is not going to be the defining character of the future. You talk about being a humanist and seeming to convey fairness but it will not happen without it. Human maturity has not evolved as fast as technology. Get over it because you can't force it.
This is why Thomas Hobbes was right. We need government to protect humanity from itself. Humans are their own worst enemy and best friend. Humans come in different types, but it has nothing to do with what you can see with your eyes, humans have different lifestyles, and they have different life patterns, these patterns are how you know what kind they are. If a human is a career criminal, no, we should not give them citizenship. However if they really do come here to work, and they can pass a backround check, I think we should give them a chance. I'm mainly for security, so it's not that I have anything against immigration, but it has to be done in a safer way than just leaving the borders wide open so random people can come in. Imagine if you left the door to your house wide open and let random individuals go in and out, you wouldnt be surprised if you got robbed would you?
And I'm sick and tired of you regurgitating back to me my points and your shpiel of a "future society of different awareness levels" is deadpan retarded because every society is this way not just in the future.
If humans are too ignorant to change, they will go extinct, why do you care about race? The human race will go extinct and all your racial brainwashing will go extinct with it.
And you are not selffukingaware. For your information, race is not just skin deep as well. Surprised? There are personal characteristics that are defining and to not respect that is prejudiced as well. I disagree that most of the people you don't get along with is in your race, that is really the most stupid argument i've ever heard.
Race is appearance. Most people who will personally bully you in life, will be of your own race. This applies to whites, blacks, most of the assholes you will meet, will be people who are the same race as you. If you are a white person, chances are that your boss is also white, and everyone you dislike personally is also white, and every woman or man who hurt you was also white, etc. In the end it does not matter what they look like, because if you've grown up around people of all different appearances like me, you start to see the pattern that the same personalities exist in all the races, it's this pattern that allows you to see the species for what it really is. If you have not the experience to see this, thats your problem, continue with your outdated beliefs.
You may have disagreements but on a deeper level you are more connected than to others. This is for everyone.
And this is how you and I are fundamentally different. I'm not connected to any random appearance type of race group. I simply have no connection to any of them, they all are equally ugly and equally beautiful. How do I know? Because all my life I've been around them all, and had friends from all the different cultural and race types and have not noticed a bit of difference in how they think, sure they look different, but the personalities are exactly the same.
I see goodness in people, not race. If race is important to you, more important than goodness, then we will not get along.
That doesn't mean people can't get along or respect eachother as they are and its just as prejudiced for you to demand they give up or give you something so you are all the "same" so you don't have to deal with any differences.
Believe what you want, but if most people put race before goodness, then we will go extinct, it's that simple. Like I always say, the masses see everyone as objects, and race is an object, a physical object, it's not a way of thinking, it's not a philosophy, it's not even a culture, it's an appearance. At best it's a shared history, but at some point you have to choose whats going to be most important, your race/heritage/history, or the human species. If you choose you race you might doom the human species, and all for a concept which isnt even real according to science.
Genes are real, but genes are not something you can see by glancing at a person. Sure you can see a skin trait, just like you can see a big nose, or a hair or eye color, but this is not enough genes to know for sure what a persons race is.
In the end, the only thing that matters, is how people live, how people think, their minds. Christians for example, or Jews, are more united than "races" because a race has nothing to do with how people think, or how people feel, or how people live, and in any race you'll have that neo-nazi, or that black supremist, who will live next door to the more open minded free thinker. You'll always have the people who believe race is real and that you can judge character by it, and people who think it's bullshit, and it's really that simple.
You are twisted like someone breaking bones to fit straight. lol
With every sentence you are convincing me you are a racist, a closet racist. You arent a hater, that much is obvious, but you believe yourself to be what others tell you that you are. If you accept the concept of race, by that definition you are a racialist, you believe in the concept. How is this any different than people who believed in Hitlers ideology? Do you really think every single person who believed in Hitlers ideology, was a hater of Jews? People believe in these ideas because it creates a type of unity that is easy for the eyes to see, very much like wearing the same uniform creates unity in the military or workplace. However, you are NOT your uniform, you are the mind, and in the end it's not going to matter what uniform humanity decides to wear, or what race humanity decides to be, because race literally is not a real concept. If you believe it's real then you'll care which race does what, but if you don't, then all that matters is survival of the species itself, and if the species continues to divide itself racially, it will continue doing these divisions until the point of final extinction. This means the racial unity is always temporary. There cannot be whites without blacks, and there cannot be blacks without whites, and if it were just whites, then whites would fight each other into extinction, and if it were just blacks, then blacks would fight each other into extinction, and the reason is in the end theres just good and bad people, period. There are people who care about the species, and people who don't. There are people who care about people, and people who don't care about anyone.
Racial discrimination will lead to genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination will lead to extinction. Extinction will be the result of Mans inability to judge character.
Last edited:
You are judging me by how I seem?! That sounds delusional! You read what I wrote, judge it.
They are human first, they are not cultural products or objects. If they view themselves as an object of their culture, as a "white" or a "black" or whatever they claim to be, before anything else, why should I care? I say we are American first, period, all of us. This means if you are here, you can either be a half American, by calling yourself European American, African American, Asian American, etc, or you can just be an American. I'm an American.I'm an American culturally, genetically, religiously, and I don't really know any other homeland. If you are talking about people who just got off the boat, alright, these people can be excluded because they are a new generation of immigrants, but if you come here you should be expected to assimilate. Being American is not free, the cost is assimilation, and love for the whole of Americas being, even if there are aspects of it that you dislike.
I don't see it like this. I see the world controlled by good or bad people, I see businesses, jobs, architecture, media and society, controlled by either good or bad people, but I do not see them as white or black people. There are good white people, by the millions, havent you met them? Some of then are defending you right now, protecting the country. Some of them are providing jobs to people like you, and you have everyone from teachers, to police officers, who are white, and good. Can't you see the world is good and bad, not white and black?
That's because of numbers, there are more white people in this country than Asians or Black people. It has nothing to do with racism, it's profitability. Hiphop is geared toward the White cusotmer too. People sell to whoever has the most customers. In these situations, it just happens to be that White people will buy anything, because theres so many. Walmart exploits the hell out of this. Walmarts are usually built in white communities, in rural or suburban areas, not urban ghettos, so what? Do you want Walmart? The corporations don't care, they exploit us ALL.
Stop thinking of yourself as a permanent foreigner, thats your problem. If you view the world in white and black, you'll be a foreigner forever because you will ALWAYS look foreign to someone else. If you view the world in good and bad, well, I think then you'll have a more accurate view of the world itself, because in the end it won't matter how you look, only what you do matters. Just because a lot of people have the black and white view of the world, it does not make them correct, it means they have a 2 dimensional view of a 3 dimensional world, they see the world as 2 dimenional objects based on skin tones and what they see with their eyes. This is not accurate, but thats how the masses see the world. If you have not noticed, I'm not the masses.
America is not the "immigrant" country, yes we are all immigrants, but not fully immigrants anymore. Why? The longer you've been here, the more native American genes you have, the more mixed you become, the more American you become, until eventually you can't go back to some other land, this land becomes your homeland because your ancestors were here, and in some cases if you have a native American ancestor or ancestors, you have just as much history and ancestory here as you do anywhere else. Where do you expect Latinos to go? Back to spain? Where do you expect the majority of Americans to go, who have American genes? How would a person decide which country in Europe, in Africa, in Asia or wherever to go back to now that they have ancestors in all these different places due to America being immigrant country as you call it?
In my opinion it should be earned. When an American family buys their first house, then they are American. But if you are talking about, people who come here, who don't try to get ahead, who don't try to get an education, and who commit crimes and stuff, these people are criminals. Citizenship should definately be earned, if you don't have any quality standards it's not going to be good for our country. We should allow people to come accross the border, and we should track each person who comes, and if they break laws and are destructive we should send them back. We do not need to invite thugs. So I'm for immigration of Good people who want to make America better, and it does not matter what they look like, it matters how they live and what they are doing with their life.
This is why Thomas Hobbes was right. We need government to protect humanity from itself. Humans are their own worst enemy and best friend. Humans come in different types, but it has nothing to do with what you can see with your eyes, humans have different lifestyles, and they have different life patterns, these patterns are how you know what kind they are. If a human is a career criminal, no, we should not give them citizenship. However if they really do come here to work, and they can pass a backround check, I think we should give them a chance. I'm mainly for security, so it's not that I have anything against immigration, but it has to be done in a safer way than just leaving the borders wide open so random people can come in. Imagine if you left the door to your house wide open and let random individuals go in and out, you wouldnt be surprised if you got robbed would you?
If humans are too ignorant to change, they will go extinct, why do you care about race? The human race will go extinct and all your racial brainwashing will go extinct with it.
Race is appearance. Most people who will personally bully you in life, will be of your own race. This applies to whites, blacks, most of the assholes you will meet, will be people who are the same race as you. If you are a white person, chances are that your boss is also white, and everyone you dislike personally is also white, and every woman or man who hurt you was also white, etc. In the end it does not matter what they look like, because if you've grown up around people of all different appearances like me, you start to see the pattern that the same personalities exist in all the races, it's this pattern that allows you to see the species for what it really is. If you have not the experience to see this, thats your problem, continue with your outdated beliefs.
And this is how you and I are fundamentally different. I'm not connected to any random appearance type of race group. I simply have no connection to any of them, they all are equally ugly and equally beautiful. How do I know? Because all my life I've been around them all, and had friends from all the different cultural and race types and have not noticed a bit of difference in how they think, sure they look different, but the personalities are exactly the same.
I see goodness in people, not race. If race is important to you, more important than goodness, then we will not get along.
Believe what you want, but if most people put race before goodness, then we will go extinct, it's that simple. Like I always say, the masses see everyone as objects, and race is an object, a physical object, it's not a way of thinking, it's not a philosophy, it's not even a culture, it's an appearance. At best it's a shared history, but at some point you have to choose whats going to be most important, your race/heritage/history, or the human species. If you choose you race you might doom the human species, and all for a concept which isnt even real according to science.
Genes are real, but genes are not something you can see by glancing at a person. Sure you can see a skin trait, just like you can see a big nose, or a hair or eye color, but this is not enough genes to know for sure what a persons race is.
In the end, the only thing that matters, is how people live, how people think, their minds. Christians for example, or Jews, are more united than "races" because a race has nothing to do with how people think, or how people feel, or how people live, and in any race you'll have that neo-nazi, or that black supremist, who will live next door to the more open minded free thinker. You'll always have the people who believe race is real and that you can judge character by it, and people who think it's bullshit, and it's really that simple.
With every sentence you are convincing me you are a racist, a closet racist. You arent a hater, that much is obvious, but you believe yourself to be what others tell you that you are. If you accept the concept of race, by that definition you are a racialist, you believe in the concept. How is this any different than people who believed in Hitlers ideology? Do you really think every single person who believed in Hitlers ideology, was a hater of Jews? People believe in these ideas because it creates a type of unity that is easy for the eyes to see, very much like wearing the same uniform creates unity in the military or workplace. However, you are NOT your uniform, you are the mind, and in the end it's not going to matter what uniform humanity decides to wear, or what race humanity decides to be, because race literally is not a real concept. If you believe it's real then you'll care which race does what, but if you don't, then all that matters is survival of the species itself, and if the species continues to divide itself racially, it will continue doing these divisions until the point of final extinction. This means the racial unity is always temporary. There cannot be whites without blacks, and there cannot be blacks without whites, and if it were just whites, then whites would fight each other into extinction, and if it were just blacks, then blacks would fight each other into extinction, and the reason is in the end theres just good and bad people, period. There are people who care about the species, and people who don't. There are people who care about people, and people who don't care about anyone.
Racial discrimination will lead to genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination will lead to extinction. Extinction will be the result of Mans inability to judge character.
You are a real idiot, you keep telling me what I already know. And you gloss over my whole point. You are going to call me a closet racist when the majority of your white population is racist? You actually think that everything is geared toward whites simply on the basis of your majority minus any prejudice, selfish identification or racism? You actually think they are not don't you? You don't think they are closet racists as well. And you think its just about being good or bad, no its not. You think not being racist is simple as telling yourself you're not one. Its like telling yourself , yes, sure I can run 10 miles because my legs aren't broken and I have running shoes whilst every step of the way your being tested by your decisions and your inability to see, acknowledge or even exploit the other. I think you are full of sh*t to think racists are simply the ones who stand out. I don't see how you can ever get it. You think like in binary numbers over and over 010101.
I already explained whitewashing everything is not a from of equality even if its unintentional.
But I already explained that its technology that will be the communicator and that is where we can find common ground.
Your stupidity is that things do not operate or work the way you think they do. And I have no fuking idea why you decided to preach to me for the last couple of days. Convince your fuking self dumbass. I've had the opportunity to be around my kind and others and there is a considerable difference in the level of "bullying." I'm so sorry your an outcast of your group but its just not the same kind of bullying as i'm talking about. They acknowledge who i am. Your a pedantic freak who takes someone's idea and turns it around to hear yourself fuking talk. You are like a parasite.
Last edited:
You have a problem learning. No, its not dumfuk. What person rules the fuking world on just ambition alone???? They eventually lose it. Did you not comprehend that it takes more than just the fuking thought to keep it. Your an egotistical ass hiding behind a fake facade of equality, the worst and most disgusting kind.
Every dictator, they rule on ambition alone. Sure they may eventually lose it, thats not the point.
Also who said I believe in equality? It depends on the type of equality. I see humans as one entity, not a bunch of race groups like you do, so we will never understand each other. This is over your head.
You are a real idiot, you keep telling me what I already know. And you gloss over my whole point. You are going to call me a closet racist when the majority of your white population is racist?
OUR white population, not MY white population. White people are humans too, and if they are American, they are our population. Also, let's be realistic, the black and asian populations are racist too, and sure, you can say that by percentage numbers that the white male population over 30 is the most racist, ok, fine. If you want to calculate racist demographics, and you come to the conclusion that old white males are racist, no ones going to be surprised.
You actually think that everything is geared toward whites simply on the basis of your majority minus any prejudice, selfish identification or racism?
You assume every corporation is run by a Nazi, it's not that way. Yes some corporations are racist, but the majority of corporations don't give a fuck about the poor, period. They hate the poor, and that means the rural or urban. If you are going to try to bring race into Capitalism, I think most corporations don't calculate the race element when trying to profit. Most seem to look more at demographics, and usually demographics include more than just race. The most important demographic is spending power/buying power, and white teenagers have way more buying power than anyone else, they don't have a lot of bills, they have a lot more excess money, and can waste their money on shit they don't need.
You actually think they are not don't you? You don't think they are closet racists as well.
Some CEO's are bad people, some corporations are run by bad individuals, racism is not what makes a person good or bad alone, it's a symptom, it's not the disease. Therefore a bad CEO that is racist, likely does not give a damn about any race, or the human race, or the environment, or in some cases themselves, their future, etc. Some CEO's only care about profits and not just this, but only about short term profits, and the profitability of the corporation, they might not give a damn about the country or the world.
And you think its just about being good or bad, no its not.
Humans are animals, when you are around an animal, like a cat or dog, and it's got black fur or white fur it makes no difference, but if the animal bites you, it's bad.
You think not being racist is simple as telling yourself you're not one.
It's as simple as not thinking within the limitations of the racial mindset, which I guess you cannot seem to do.
Its like telling yourself , yes, sure I can run 10 miles because my legs aren't broken and I have running shoes whilst every step of the way your being tested by your decisions and your inability to see, acknowledge or even exploit the other. I think you are full of sh*t to think racists are simply the ones who stand out.
So if a person hates the human race, are they the same as a racist?
I don't see how you can ever get it. You think like in binary numbers over and over 010101.
It's called being rational, learn it.
I already explained whitewashing everything is not a from of equality even if its unintentional.
All your white and black terminology. It's not about white and black, it's about good and bad. The world will be the same if the white people who currently are in control, simply switched races and were black. Basically if all humans switched races, nothing would change, it would be the exact same world, because the same minds would be in the world.
BUT I already explained that its technology that will be the communicator and that is where we can find common ground.
Some of us have found common ground, it seems you havent, it happens at a different pace for different people, and some people never can do it. I'm just saying, if you want to find common ground, drop the divisive concepts like race and adopt a humanist approach. If you don't want the world divided into white and black, learn to judge character into good and evil, because it's going to be divided either way. All people will never be equal, but if we are going to discriminate we should do so as accurately as possible.
Your stupidity is that things do not operate or work the way you think they do. And I have no fuking idea why you decided to preach to me for the last couple of days. Convince your fuking self dumbass. I've had the opportunity to be around my kind and others and there is a considerable difference in the level of "bullying."
Have you ever talked to white victims? Whats the difference between a white victim and a black victim? If you cannot see that all victims are in pain, and you cannot respond equally to all victims, you have a problem. Despite what you think, white people hate other white people, bully other white people, and suicide rates and misery levels are shared by all people, pain is a shared tax, misery is a shared tax, it's a shared expense, we all pay the price when bad people do bad things and it does not matter which people are the victims because all pain is equal.
I can see you are a good person, but you lack the ability to see yourself in other people, because you only see with your eyes.
Every dictator, they rule on ambition alone. Sure they may eventually lose it, thats not the point.
Also who said I believe in equality? It depends on the type of equality. I see humans as one entity, not a bunch of race groups like you do, so we will never understand each other. This is over your head.
Sadly, its quite the opposite. LOL. Because its too profound and complicated for you to understand. Even though its so easy and obvious if it weren't for you implacable brick wall of exact self-centeredness, I can barely make out the creases. Ya see, let me explain. When your perfectly self-centered as your viewpoints are, everything seems so justifiable, your intentions are always right and you are in the right and no frayed edges. That is your problem, you don't see just how self-centered your position is. Thats why you have to meet in the middle, not expect or force them to invite you into their bed and vice versa or rape it from them just because you think nothing is personal except what you deem and your a greedy empty bottomless pit of a human being that doesn't hold any or see any values beyond your own of appropriation and mass cultural orgy.
Humans are an entity but not according to your whims and values. Its multiple wills, whims, and values and they may not coincide with yours. Because its not just about your idea of equality against anothers. In the end it will be about things, customs, attitudes etc. You may offend them and vice versa. There will be understanding as long as your willing to acknowledge who and what they are and not stomp on it. Pretending something doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into your angular and generic concept of equality is inequality and prejudice. Its much more an art than just self-centeredly saying this is what i want and this is what I want to give so therefore I am fair. They may not want or need what you want to give in exchange for what you want from them may not be appropriate. Because no matter how logically you think, everyone has some sort of personal agenda in dealing with others because we are selfish beings.
You start off with some bullsh*t about "every dictator rules on ambition..?? which was fuking stupid. Are you giving yourself a fuking art of war lesson and using me as a captive audience and a sounding board??? HUHH?? You think your ramming some pertinent point down my throat to me???
You talk about not seeing any race and simultaneouslly you talk give yourself away that might is right and dictatorial behavior is justified.
I was right about you. And you have the nerve to call me a closet racist because I don't want to be a pawn in your cpu network where your the invisible fuker with the design. FUK OFF!!!
OUR white population, not MY white population. White people are humans too, and if they are American, they are our population. Also, let's be realistic, the black and asian populations are racist too, and sure, you can say that by percentage numbers that the white male population over 30 is the most racist, ok, fine. If you want to calculate racist demographics, and you come to the conclusion that old white males are racist, no ones going to be surprised.
You assume every corporation is run by a Nazi, it's not that way. Yes some corporations are racist, but the majority of corporations don't give a fuck about the poor, period. They hate the poor, and that means the rural or urban. If you are going to try to bring race into Capitalism, I think most corporations don't calculate the race element when trying to profit. Most seem to look more at demographics, and usually demographics include more than just race. The most important demographic is spending power/buying power, and white teenagers have way more buying power than anyone else, they don't have a lot of bills, they have a lot more excess money, and can waste their money on shit they don't need.
Some CEO's are bad people, some corporations are run by bad individuals, racism is not what makes a person good or bad alone, it's a symptom, it's not the disease. Therefore a bad CEO that is racist, likely does not give a damn about any race, or the human race, or the environment, or in some cases themselves, their future, etc. Some CEO's only care about profits and not just this, but only about short term profits, and the profitability of the corporation, they might not give a damn about the country or the world.
Humans are animals, when you are around an animal, like a cat or dog, and it's got black fur or white fur it makes no difference, but if the animal bites you, it's bad.
It's as simple as not thinking within the limitations of the racial mindset, which I guess you cannot seem to do.
So if a person hates the human race, are they the same as a racist?
It's called being rational, learn it.
All your white and black terminology. It's not about white and black, it's about good and bad. The world will be the same if the white people who currently are in control, simply switched races and were black. Basically if all humans switched races, nothing would change, it would be the exact same world, because the same minds would be in the world.
Some of us have found common ground, it seems you havent, it happens at a different pace for different people, and some people never can do it. I'm just saying, if you want to find common ground, drop the divisive concepts like race and adopt a humanist approach. If you don't want the world divided into white and black, learn to judge character into good and evil, because it's going to be divided either way. All people will never be equal, but if we are going to discriminate we should do so as accurately as possible.
Have you ever talked to white victims? Whats the difference between a white victim and a black victim? If you cannot see that all victims are in pain, and you cannot respond equally to all victims, you have a problem. Despite what you think, white people hate other white people, bully other white people, and suicide rates and misery levels are shared by all people, pain is a shared tax, misery is a shared tax, it's a shared expense, we all pay the price when bad people do bad things and it does not matter which people are the victims because all pain is equal.
I can see you are a good person, but you lack the ability to see yourself in other people, because you only see with your eyes.
LOLOLOLOLOL. You are not only a dishonest fuker but you are hugely delusional. Really, you must think I've got some special powers as you seem to be stalking me to use me as your personal therapist to listen to your sh*t.
You really are that retarded that you think I or anyone doesn't know that black and white don't commit crimes or hurt eachother??? Really, i dadn't knaww DDat! WEE WEE??? Shut the fuk up.
Your preaching to me about learning to see things on a humanistic level?? HA HA!! You don't think I don't know how to judge character??
You say you've found common ground?? With who?? And you think I don't? The only people I get along with are true egalitarians, you dumbsh*t for brains. Your just egomasturbating and unfortunately on me, you disgusting mental devious pervert.
Oh my gosh, You are a fuking disgusting lowlife! you contradicted yourself so many fuking times. You say you are an american and to be an american you have to accept the good and specifically the bad you don't like. And you stated earlier that americans should be able to pick and choose from other cultures to appropriate as american and reject what they don't like. Do you realize what you are saying?? Of course you don't, you'll turn around and justify and rationalize everything you say. Basically your saying americans have the right to appropriate and exploit those that come into this country and not respect who they are, that they should conform to american values both good and bad. Americans can misbehave but not them because its the american way. Considering the american way at root just like a cpu as the example you like to use is based on white values, Then why two pages of all this bullsh*t of every race is one, timefuker??? You can't even fuking talk for someone outside of your american values you presumptuous sh*t!!!
I can tell by the way you think, as I suspected earlier that you are either white or african american probably the latter and your slimy masquerading in your fake cow one human race persona. You condone all that is american but not all of other cultures and you have the nerve to talk or preach about one human race you disgusting appropriating sh*t. And you think everyone is just the same. I am judging you on your fuking character you despicable moron.
Last edited:
iam;1258161]Sadly, its quite the opposite. LOL. Because its too profound and complicated for you to understand. Even though its so easy and obvious if it weren't for you implacable brick wall of exact self-centeredness, I can barely make out the creases. Ya see, let me explain. When your perfectly self-centered as your viewpoints are, everything seems so justifiable, your intentions are always right and you are in the right and no frayed edges. That is your problem, you don't see just how self-centered your position is.
Actually I do. Thats why I consider myself a HUMANIST. I'm a HUMAN. Whats wrong with being self centered? A parent who cares about their children are self centered?
Thats why you have to meet in the middle, not expect or force them to invite you into their bed and vice versa or rape it from them just because you think nothing is personal except what you deem and your a greedy empty bottomless pit of a human being that doesn't hold any or see any values beyond your own of appropriation and mass cultural orgy.
If you want to know the real human values, greed, self destruction, aggression, hate, and rudeness, ignorance, immorality, insecurity, jealousy, etc.
Because humans by nature, HAVE values, just the wrong values. Just because my values are new, they don't seem right, but if you do the calculus, and do the math, and ignore everything you were taught by race concepts and just see humans as a bunch of wild or domestic animals, then you'll easily see that my values are stunningly accurate. My values apply to the human animal.
Humans are an entity but not according to your whims and values. Its multiple wills, whims, and values and they may not coincide with yours. Because its not just about your idea of equality against anothers. In the end it will be about things, customs, attitudes etc.
Race is a religion to some humans, so is money. Race was invented to control the masses, and so was money. A racist, will literally think anything that people want them to think, if it's explained in the right context. You can convince a racist to kill themselves, jump off a cliff, dive into a pit of spikes, or do a lot of stuff which would be completely irrational, but which they believe in so much, with a religious zeal that they will do anything. People will die for their race, it does not make any fucking sense to me, but it does to them. Some other people however will die for the human race, or for God, or money. The point is, people do a lot of strange irrational things and if you present a rational view it might not be understood due to the religious nature of the human animal.
You may offend them and vice versa. There will be understanding as long as your willing to acknowledge who and what they are and not stomp on it.
Who and What are you? are you a human? are you a race? Are you an American? you have to pick your own identity, not let other people choose it for you, and once you pick your identity, you have to adapt your worldview around YOUR identity, not everyone elses.
Pretending something doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into your angular and generic concept of equality is inequality and prejudice.
It doesnt, it scientifically does not exist. Race only exists in peoples minds. Family is real, race is not. Tribe is real, race is not. Culture is real, race is not. So yes some things DO exist, but not race.
Its much more an art than just self-centeredly saying this is what i want and this is what I want to give so therefore I am fair. They may not want or need what you want to give in exchange for what you want from them may not be appropriate.
You are talking about the masses. The average person does not know who or what they are, other people tell them.
Because no matter how logically you think, everyone has some sort of personal agenda in dealing with others because we are selfish beings.
Who is we? you are funny, when you talk about white people suddenly it's they, it's not your people, but when you talk about selfishness then suddenly it's we? racism is we also. And no, not everyone is selfish in an ignorant way. If you love yourself, then yes you are selfish, but if you love yourself in a complete way, as in you love humanity, or at least certain aspects of it, it's extreme selfishness, it's extremely big ego, but it's not harmful because it's not the same as hating everyone.
So those are the two directions, you have people who have the opposite way of thinking, they hate themselves, they hate their species, they hate life, and so you see, it's the same complex from a different emotional angle. Some people just have large egos.
You start off with some bullsh*t about "every dictator rules on ambition..?? which was fuking stupid. Are you giving yourself a fuking art of war lesson and using me as a captive audience and a sounding board??? HUHH?? You think your ramming some pertinent point down my throat to me???
To conquer you only need ambition, will. It's that some people WANTED to dominate the earth and were willing to do ANYTHING to do it, and so they did. Thats all it was, it was this desire to control and dominate everything in their environment, and this desire was so extreme that they'd do ANYTHING to satisfy it, perhaps it was an addiction, or maybe they were/are control freaks, but they will do anything to rule and they rule by sheer strength of will and determination. Most dictators rule because they take power, they are so determined that God wants them to rule, or that they should rule, that they'll just ruthlessly take the world. It's this ruthless aggression that leads to world domination.
You talk about not seeing any race and simultaneouslly you talk give yourself away that might is right and dictatorial behavior is justified.
You should learn about natural law. Might is right, but it's not GOOD to dominate by might. Just because natural law makes might right, it does not mean we should encourage it.
I was right about you. And you have the nerve to call me a closet racist because I don't want to be a pawn in your cpu network where your the invisible fuker with the design. FUK OFF!!!
To help you with your studies, I'll post a couple of chapters from Thomas Hobbes Leviathan so that you may be familar with natural law. I also suggest you read Nicolo Macheivelli The Prince.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#CHAPTERXIIINATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.
From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.
And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.
Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
It may seem strange to some man that has not well weighed these things that Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this inference, made from the passions, desire perhaps to have the same confirmed by experience. Let him therefore consider with himself: when taking a journey, he arms himself and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words? But neither of us accuse man's nature in it. The desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions till they know a law that forbids them; which till laws be made they cannot know, nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it.
It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common power to fear, by the manner of life which men that have formerly lived under a peaceful government use to degenerate into a civil war.
But though there had never been any time wherein particular men were in a condition of war one against another, yet in all times kings and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbours, which is a posture of war. But because they uphold thereby the industry of their subjects, there does not follow from it that misery which accompanies the liberty of particular men.
To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the passions, partly in his reason.
The passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient articles of peace upon which men may be drawn to agreement. These articles are they which otherwise are called the laws of nature, whereof I shall speak more particularly in the two following chapters.
CHAPTER XIV
OF THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURAL LAWS, AND OF CONTRACTS
THE right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.
By liberty is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.
A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.
To lay down a man's right to anything is to divest himself of the liberty of hindering another of the benefit of his own right to the same. For he that renounceth or passeth away his right giveth not to any other man a right which he had not before, because there is nothing to which every man had not right by nature, but only standeth out of his way that he may enjoy his own original right without hindrance from him, not without hindrance from another. So that the effect which redoundeth to one man by another man's defect of right is but so much diminution of impediments to the use of his own right original.
Right is laid aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another. By simply renouncing, when he cares not to whom the benefit thereof redoundeth. By transferring, when he intendeth the benefit thereof to some certain person or persons. And when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his right, then is he said to be obliged, or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted, or abandoned, from the benefit of it: and that he ought, and it is duty, not to make void that voluntary act of his own: and that such hindrance is injustice, and injury, as being sine jure; the right being before renounced or transferred. So that injury or injustice, in the controversies of the world, is somewhat like to that which in the disputations of scholars is called absurdity. For as it is there called an absurdity to contradict what one maintained in the beginning; so in the world it is called injustice, and injury voluntarily to undo that which from the beginning he had voluntarily done. The way by which a man either simply renounceth or transferreth his right is a declaration, or signification, by some voluntary and sufficient sign, or signs, that he doth so renounce or transfer, or hath so renounced or transferred the same, to him that accepteth it. And these signs are either words only, or actions only; or, as it happeneth most often, both words and actions. And the same are the bonds, by which men are bound and obliged: bonds that have their strength, not from their own nature (for nothing is more easily broken than a man's word), but from fear of some evil consequence upon the rupture.
Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it, it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself. And therefore there be some rights which no man can be understood by any words, or other signs, to have abandoned or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself. The same may be said of wounds, and chains, and imprisonment, both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience, as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded or imprisoned, as also because a man cannot tell when he seeth men proceed against him by violence whether they intend his death or not. And lastly the motive and end for which this renouncing and transferring of right is introduced is nothing else but the security of a man's person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving life as not to be weary of it. And therefore if a man by words, or other signs, seem to despoil himself of the end for which those signs were intended, he is not to be understood as if he meant it, or that it was his will, but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted.
The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract.
There is difference between transferring of right to the thing, the thing, and transferring or tradition, that is, delivery of the thing itself. For the thing may be delivered together with the translation of the right, as in buying and selling with ready money, or exchange of goods or lands, and it may be delivered some time after.
Again, one of the contractors may deliver the thing contracted for on his part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate time after, and in the meantime be trusted; and then the contract on his part is called pact, or covenant: or both parts may contract now to perform hereafter, in which cases he that is to perform in time to come, being trusted, his performance is called keeping of promise, or faith, and the failing of performance, if it be voluntary, violation of faith.
When the transferring of right is not mutual, but one of the parties transferreth in hope to gain thereby friendship or service from another, or from his friends; or in hope to gain the reputation of charity, or magnanimity; or to deliver his mind from the pain of compassion; or in hope of reward in heaven; this is not contract, but gift, free gift, grace: which words signify one and the same thing.
Signs of contract are either express or by inference. Express are words spoken with understanding of what they signify: and such words are either of the time present or past; as, I give, I grant, I have given, I have granted, I will that this be yours: or of the future; as, I will give, I will grant, which words of the future are called promise.
Signs by inference are sometimes the consequence of words; sometimes the consequence of silence; sometimes the consequence of actions; sometimes the consequence of forbearing an action: and generally a sign by inference, of any contract, is whatsoever sufficiently argues the will of the contractor.
Words alone, if they be of the time to come, and contain a bare promise, are an insufficient sign of a free gift and therefore not obligatory. For if they be of the time to come, as, tomorrow I will give, they are a sign I have not given yet, and consequently that my right is not transferred, but remaineth till I transfer it by some other act. But if the words be of the time present, or past, as, I have given, or do give to be delivered tomorrow, then is my tomorrow's right given away today; and that by the virtue of the words, though there were no other argument of my will. And there is a great difference in the signification of these words, volo hoc tuum esse cras, and cras dabo; that is, between I will that this be thine tomorrow, and, I will give it thee tomorrow: for the word I will, in the former manner of speech, signifies an act of the will present; but in the latter, it signifies a promise of an act of the will to come: and therefore the former words, being of the present, transfer a future right; the latter, that be of the future, transfer nothing. But if there be other signs of the will to transfer a right besides words; then, though the gift be free, yet may the right be understood to pass by words of the future: as if a man propound a prize to him that comes first to the end of a race, the gift is free; and though the words be of the future, yet the right passeth: for if he would not have his words so be understood, he should not have let them run.
In contracts the right passeth, not only where the words are of the time present or past, but also where they are of the future, because all contract is mutual translation, or change of right; and therefore he that promiseth only, because he hath already received the benefit for which he promiseth, is to be understood as if he intended the right should pass: for unless he had been content to have his words so understood, the other would not have performed his part first. And for that cause, in buying, and selling, and other acts of contract, a promise is equivalent to a covenant, and therefore obligatory.
He that performeth first in the case of a contract is said to merit that which he is to receive by the performance of the other, and he hath it as due. Also when a prize is propounded to many, which is to be given to him only that winneth, or money is thrown amongst many to be enjoyed by them that catch it; though this be a free gift, yet so to win, or so to catch, is to merit, and to have it as due. For the right is transferred in the propounding of the prize, and in throwing down the money, though it be not determined to whom, but by the event of the contention. But there is between these two sorts of merit this difference, that in contract I merit by virtue of my own power and the contractor's need, but in this case of free gift I am enabled to merit only by the benignity of the giver: in contract I merit at the contractor's hand that he should depart with his right; in this case of gift, I merit not that the giver should part with his right, but that when he has parted with it, it should be mine rather than another's. And this I think to be the meaning of that distinction of the Schools between meritum congrui and meritum condigni. For God Almighty, having promised paradise to those men, hoodwinked with carnal desires, that can walk through this world according to the precepts and limits prescribed by him, they say he that shall so walk shall merit paradise ex congruo. But because no man can demand a right to it by his own righteousness, or any other power in himself, but by the free grace of God only, they say no man can merit paradise ex condigno. This, I say, I think is the meaning of that distinction; but because disputers do not agree upon the signification of their own terms of art longer than it serves their turn, I will not affirm anything of their meaning: only this I say; when a gift is given indefinitely, as a prize to be contended for, he that winneth meriteth, and may claim the prize as due.
If a covenant be made wherein neither of the parties perform presently, but trust one another, in the condition of mere nature (which is a condition of war of every man against every man) upon any reasonable suspicion, it is void: but if there be a common power set over them both, with right and force sufficient to compel performance, it is not void. For he that performeth first has no assurance the other will perform after, because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle men's ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions, without the fear of some coercive power; which in the condition of mere nature, where all men are equal, and judges of the justness of their own fears, cannot possibly be supposed. And therefore he which performeth first does but betray himself to his enemy, contrary to the right he can never abandon of defending his life and means of living.
But in a civil estate, where there a power set up to constrain those that would otherwise violate their faith, that fear is no more reasonable; and for that cause, he which by the covenant is to perform first is obliged so to do.
The cause of fear, which maketh such a covenant invalid, must be always something arising after the covenant made, as some new fact or other sign of the will not to perform, else it cannot make the covenant void. For that which could not hinder a man from promising ought not to be admitted as a hindrance of performing.
He that transferreth any right transferreth the means of enjoying it, as far as lieth in his power. As he that selleth land is understood to transfer the herbage and whatsoever grows upon it; nor can he that sells a mill turn away the stream that drives it. And they that give to a man the right of government in sovereignty are understood to give him the right of levying money to maintain soldiers, and of appointing magistrates for the administration of justice.
To make covenants with brute beasts is impossible, because not understanding our speech, they understand not, nor accept of any translation of right, nor can translate any right to another: and without mutual acceptation, there is no covenant.
To make covenant with God is impossible but by mediation of such as God speaketh to, either by revelation supernatural or by His lieutenants that govern under Him and in His name: for otherwise we know not whether our covenants be accepted or not. And therefore they that vow anything contrary to any law of nature, vow in vain, as being a thing unjust to pay such vow. And if it be a thing commanded by the law of nature, it is not the vow, but the law that binds them.
The matter or subject of a covenant is always something that falleth under deliberation, for to covenant is an act of the will; that is to say, an act, and the last act, of deliberation; and is therefore always understood to be something to come, and which judged possible for him that covenanteth to perform.
And therefore, to promise that which is known to be impossible is no covenant. But if that prove impossible afterwards, which before was thought possible, the covenant is valid and bindeth, though not to the thing itself, yet to the value; or, if that also be impossible, to the unfeigned endeavour of performing as much as is possible, for to more no man can be obliged.
Men are freed of their covenants two ways; by performing, or by being forgiven. For performance is the natural end of obligation, and forgiveness the restitution of liberty, as being a retransferring of that right in which the obligation consisted.
Covenants entered into by fear, in the condition of mere nature, are obligatory. For example, if I covenant to pay a ransom, or service for my life, to an enemy, I am bound by it. For it is a contract, wherein one receiveth the benefit of life; the other is to receive money, or service for it, and consequently, where no other law (as in the condition of mere nature) forbiddeth the performance, the covenant is valid. Therefore prisoners of war, if trusted with the payment of their ransom, are obliged to pay it: and if a weaker prince make a disadvantageous peace with a stronger, for fear, he is bound to keep it; unless (as hath been said before) there ariseth some new and just cause of fear to renew the war. And even in Commonwealths, if I be forced to redeem myself from a thief by promising him money, I am bound to pay it, till the civil law discharge me. For whatsoever I may lawfully do without obligation, the same I may lawfully covenant to do through fear: and what I lawfully covenant, I cannot lawfully break.
A former covenant makes void a later. For a man that hath passed away his right to one man today hath it not to pass tomorrow to another: and therefore the later promise passeth no right, but is null.
A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For (as I have shown before) no man can transfer or lay down his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, the avoiding whereof is the only end of laying down any right; and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no covenant transferreth any right, nor is obliging. For though a man may covenant thus, unless I do so, or so, kill me; he cannot covenant thus, unless I do so, or so, I will not resist you when you come to kill me. For man by nature chooseth the lesser evil, which is danger of death in resisting, rather than the greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in that they lead criminals to execution, and prison, with armed men, notwithstanding that such criminals have consented to the law by which they are condemned.
A covenant to accuse oneself, without assurance of pardon, is likewise invalid. For in the condition of nature where every man is judge, there is no place for accusation: and in the civil state the accusation is followed with punishment, which, being force, a man is not obliged not to resist. The same is also true of the accusation of those by whose condemnation a man falls into misery; as of a father, wife, or benefactor. For the testimony of such an accuser, if it be not willingly given, is presumed to be corrupted by nature, and therefore not to be received: and where a man's testimony is not to be credited, he is not bound to give it. Also accusations upon torture are not to be reputed as testimonies. For torture is to be used but as means of conjecture, and light, in the further examination and search of truth: and what is in that case confessed tendeth to the ease of him that is tortured, not to the informing of the torturers, and therefore ought not to have the credit of a sufficient testimony: for whether he deliver himself by true or false accusation, he does it by the right of preserving his own life.
The force of words being (as I have formerly noted) too weak to hold men to the performance of their covenants, there are in man's nature but two imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a fear of the consequence of breaking their word, or a glory or pride in appearing not to need to break it. This latter is a generosity too rarely found to be presumed on, especially in the pursuers of wealth, command, or sensual pleasure, which are the greatest part of mankind. The passion to be reckoned upon is fear; whereof there be two very general objects: one, the power of spirits invisible; the other, the power of those men they shall therein offend. Of these two, though the former be the greater power, yet the fear of the latter is commonly the greater fear. The fear of the former is in every man his own religion, which hath place in the nature of man before civil society. The latter hath not so; at least not place enough to keep men to their promises, because in the condition of mere nature, the inequality of power is not discerned, but by the event of battle. So that before the time of civil society, or in the interruption thereof by war, there is nothing can strengthen a covenant of peace agreed on against the temptations of avarice, ambition, lust, or other strong desire, but the fear of that invisible power which they every one worship as God, and fear as a revenger of their perfidy. All therefore that can be done between two men not subject to civil power is to put one another to swear by the God he feareth: which swearing, or oath, is a form of speech, added to a promise, by which he that promiseth signifieth that unless he perform he renounceth the mercy of his God, or calleth to him for vengeance on himself. Such was the heathen form, Let Jupiter kill me else, as I kill this beast. So is our form, I shall do thus, and thus, so help me God. And this, with the rites and ceremonies which every one useth in his own religion, that the fear of breaking faith might be the greater.
By this it appears that an oath taken according to any other form, or rite, than his that sweareth is in vain and no oath, and that there is no swearing by anything which the swearer thinks not God. For though men have sometimes used to swear by their kings, for fear, or flattery; yet they would have it thereby understood they attributed to them divine honour. And that swearing unnecessarily by God is but profaning of his name: and swearing by other things, as men do in common discourse, is not swearing, but an impious custom, gotten by too much vehemence of talking.
It appears also that the oath adds nothing to the obligation. For a covenant, if lawful, binds in the sight of God, without the oath, as much as with it; if unlawful, bindeth not at all, though it be confirmed with an oath.
CHAPTER XV
OF OTHER LAWS OF NATURE
FROM that law of nature by which we are obliged to transfer to another such rights as, being retained, hinder the peace of mankind, there followeth a third; which is this: that men perform their covenants made; without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words; and the right of all men to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war.
And in this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice. For where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no right been transferred, and every man has right to everything and consequently, no action can be unjust. But when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
But because covenants of mutual trust, where there is a fear of not performance on either part (as hath been said in the former chapter), are invalid, though the original of justice be the making of covenants, yet injustice actually there can be none till the cause of such fear be taken away; which, while men are in the natural condition of war, cannot be done. Therefore before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant, and to make good that propriety which by mutual contract men acquire in recompense of the universal right they abandon: and such power there is none before the erection of a Commonwealth. And this is also to be gathered out of the ordinary definition of justice in the Schools, for they say that justice is the constant will of giving to every man his own. And therefore where there is no own, that is, no propriety, there is no injustice; and where there is no coercive power erected, that is, where there is no Commonwealth, there is no propriety, all men having right to all things: therefore where there is no Commonwealth, there nothing is unjust. So that the nature of justice consisteth in keeping of valid covenants, but the validity of covenants begins not but with the constitution of a civil power sufficient to compel men to keep them: and then it is also that propriety begins.
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice, and sometimes also with his tongue, seriously alleging that every man's conservation and contentment being committed to his own care, there could be no reason why every man might not do what he thought conduced thereunto: and therefore also to make, or not make; keep, or not keep, covenants was not against reason when it conduced to one's benefit. He does not therein deny that there be covenants; and that they are sometimes broken, sometimes kept; and that such breach of them may be called injustice, and the observance of them justice: but he questioneth whether injustice, taking away the fear of God (for the same fool hath said in his heart there is no God), not sometimes stand with that reason which dictateth to every man his own good; and particularly then, when it conduceth to such a benefit as shall put a man in a condition to neglect not only the dispraise and revilings, but also the power of other men. The kingdom of God is gotten by violence: but what if it could be gotten by unjust violence? Were it against reason so to get it, when it is impossible to receive hurt by it? And if it be not against reason, it is not against justice: or else justice is not to be approved for good. From such reasoning as this, successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue: and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation of faith, yet have allowed it when it is for the getting of a kingdom. And the heathen that believed that Saturn was deposed by his son Jupiter believed nevertheless the same Jupiter to be the avenger of injustice, somewhat like to a piece of law in Coke's Commentaries on Littleton; where he says if the right heir of the crown be attainted of treason, yet the crown shall descend to him, and eo instante the attainder be void: from which instances a man will be very prone to infer that when the heir apparent of a kingdom shall kill him that is in possession, though his father, you may call it injustice, or by what other name you will; yet it can never be against reason, seeing all the voluntary actions of men tend to the benefit of themselves; and those actions are most reasonable that conduce most to their ends. This specious reasoning is nevertheless false.
For the question is not of promises mutual, where there is no security of performance on either side, as when there is no civil power erected over the parties promising; for such promises are no covenants: but either where one of the parties has performed already, or where there is a power to make him perform, there is the question whether it be against reason; that is, against the benefit of the other to perform, or not. And I say it is not against reason. For the manifestation whereof we are to consider; first, that when a man doth a thing, which notwithstanding anything can be foreseen and reckoned on tendeth to his own destruction, howsoever some accident, which he could not expect, arriving may turn it to his benefit; yet such events do not make it reasonably or wisely done. Secondly, that in a condition of war, wherein every man to every man, for want of a common power to keep them all in awe, is an enemy, there is no man can hope by his own strength, or wit, to himself from destruction without the help of confederates; where every one expects the same defence by the confederation that any one else does: and therefore he which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him can in reason expect no other means of safety than what can be had from his own single power. He, therefore, that breaketh his covenant, and consequently declareth that he thinks he may with reason do so, cannot be received into any society that unite themselves for peace and defence but by the error of them that receive him; nor when he is received be retained in it without seeing the danger of their error; which errors a man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security: and therefore if he be left, or cast out of society, he perisheth; and if he live in society, it is by the errors of other men, which he could not foresee nor reckon upon, and consequently against the reason of his preservation; and so, as all men that contribute not to his destruction forbear him only out of ignorance of what is good for themselves.
As for the instance of gaining the secure and perpetual felicity of heaven by any way, it is frivolous; there being but one way imaginable, and that is not breaking, but keeping of covenant.
And for the other instance of attaining sovereignty by rebellion; it is manifest that, though the event follow, yet because it cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the contrary, and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof is against reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, keeping of covenant, is a rule of reason by which we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our life, and consequently a law of nature.
There be some that proceed further and will not have the law of nature to be those rules which conduce to the preservation of man's life on earth, but to the attaining of an eternal felicity after death; to which they think the breach of covenant may conduce, and consequently be just and reasonable; such are they that think it a work of merit to kill, or depose, or rebel against the sovereign power constituted over them by their own consent. But because there is no natural knowledge of man's estate after death, much less of the reward that is then to be given to breach of faith, but only a belief grounded upon other men's saying that they know it supernaturally or that they know those that knew them that knew others that knew it supernaturally, breach of faith cannot be called a precept of reason or nature.
Others, that allow for a law of nature the keeping of faith, do nevertheless make exception of certain persons; as heretics, and such as use not to perform their covenant to others; and this also is against reason. For if any fault of a man be sufficient to discharge our covenant made, the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to have hindered the making of it.
The names of just and unjust when they are attributed to men, signify one thing, and when they are attributed to actions, another. When they are attributed to men, they signify conformity, or inconformity of manners, to reason. But when they are attributed to action they signify the conformity, or inconformity to reason, not of manners, or manner of life, but of particular actions. A just man therefore is he that taketh all the care he can that his actions may be all just; and an unjust man is he that neglecteth it. And such men are more often in our language styled by the names of righteous and unrighteous than just and unjust though the meaning be the same. Therefore a righteous man does not lose that title by one or a few unjust actions that proceed from sudden passion, or mistake of things or persons, nor does an unrighteous man lose his character for such actions as he does, or forbears to do, for fear: because his will is not framed by the justice, but by the apparent benefit of what he is to do. That which gives to human actions the relish of justice is a certain nobleness or gallantness of courage, rarely found, by which a man scorns to be beholding for the contentment of his life to fraud, or breach of promise. This justice of the manners is that which is meant where justice is called a virtue; and injustice, a vice.
But the justice of actions denominates men, not just, but guiltless: and the injustice of the same (which is also called injury) gives them but the name of guilty.
Again, the injustice of manners is the disposition or aptitude to do injury, and is injustice before it proceed to act, and without supposing any individual person injured. But the injustice of an action (that is to say, injury) supposeth an individual person injured; namely him to whom the covenant was made: and therefore many times the injury is received by one man when the damage redoundeth to another. As when the master commandeth his servant to give money to stranger; if it be not done, the injury is done to the master, whom he had before covenanted to obey; but the damage redoundeth to the stranger, to whom he had no obligation, and therefore could not injure him. And so also in Commonwealths private men may remit to one another their debts, but not robberies or other violences, whereby they are endamaged; because the detaining of debt is an injury to themselves, but robbery and violence are injuries to the person of the Commonwealth.
Whatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own will signified to the doer, is not injury to him. For if he that doeth it hath not passed away his original right to do what he please by some antecedent covenant, there is no breach of covenant, and therefore no injury done him. And if he have, then his will to have it done, being signified, is a release of that covenant, and so again there is no injury done him.
Justice of actions is by writers divided into commutative and distributive: and the former they say consisteth in proportion arithmetical; the latter in proportion geometrical. Commutative, therefore, they place in the equality of value of the things contracted for; and distributive, in the distribution of equal benefit to men of equal merit. As if it were injustice to sell dearer than we buy, or to give more to a man than he merits. The value of all things contracted for is measured by the appetite of the contractors, and therefore the just value is that which they be contented to give. And merit (besides that which is by covenant, where the performance on one part meriteth the performance of the other part, and falls under justice commutative, not distributive) is not due by justice, but is rewarded of grace only. And therefore this distinction, in the sense wherein it useth to be expounded, is not right. To speak properly, commutative justice is the justice of a contractor; that is, a performance of covenant in buying and selling, hiring and letting to hire, lending and borrowing, exchanging, bartering, and other acts of contract.
And distributive justice, the justice of an arbitrator; that is to say, the act of defining what is just. Wherein, being trusted by them that make him arbitrator, if he perform his trust, he is said to distribute to every man his own: and this is indeed just distribution, and may be called, though improperly, distributive justice, but more properly equity, which also is a law of nature, as shall be shown in due place.
As justice dependeth on antecedent covenant; so does gratitude depend on antecedent grace; that is to say, antecedent free gift; and is the fourth law of nature, which may be conceived in this form: that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace endeavour that he which giveth it have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. For no man giveth but with intention of good to himself, because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts, the object is to every man his own good; of which if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no beginning of benevolence or trust, nor consequently of mutual help, nor of reconciliation of one man to another; and therefore they are to remain still in the condition of war, which is contrary to the first and fundamental law of nature which commandeth men to seek peace. The breach of this law is called ingratitude, and hath the same relation to grace that injustice hath to obligation by covenant.
A fifth law of nature is complaisance; that is to say, that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. For the understanding whereof we may consider that there is in men's aptness to society a diversity of nature, rising from their diversity of affections, not unlike to that we see in stones brought together for building of an edifice. For as that stone which by the asperity and irregularity of figure takes more room from others than itself fills, and for hardness cannot be easily made plain, and thereby hindereth the building, is by the builders cast away as unprofitable and troublesome: so also, a man that by asperity of nature will strive to retain those things which to himself are superfluous, and to others necessary, and for the stubbornness of his passions cannot be corrected, is to be left or cast out of society as cumbersome thereunto. For seeing every man, not only by right, but also by necessity of nature, is supposed to endeavour all he can to obtain that which is necessary for his conservation, he that shall oppose himself against it for things superfluous is guilty of the war that thereupon is to follow, and therefore doth that which is contrary to the fundamental law of nature, which commandeth to seek peace. The observers of this law may be called sociable, (the Latins call them commodi); the contrary, stubborn, insociable, forward, intractable.
A sixth law of nature is this: that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that, repenting, desire it. For pardon is nothing but granting of peace; which though granted to them that persevere in their hostility, be not peace, but fear; yet not granted to them that give caution of the future time is sign of an aversion to peace, and therefore contrary to the law of nature.
A seventh is: that in revenges (that is, retribution of evil for evil), men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other design than for correction of the offender, or direction of others. For this law is consequent to the next before it, that commandeth pardon upon security of the future time. Besides, revenge without respect to the example and profit to come is a triumph, or glorying in the hurt of another, tending to no end (for the end is always somewhat to come); and glorying to no end is vain-glory, and contrary to reason; and to hurt without reason tendeth to the introduction of war, which is against the law of nature, and is commonly styled by the name of cruelty.
And because all signs of hatred, or contempt, provoke to fight; insomuch as most men choose rather to hazard their life than not to be revenged, we may in the eighth place, for a law of nature, set down this precept: that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The question who is the better man has no place in the condition of mere nature, where (as has been shown before) all men are equal. The inequality that now is has been introduced by the laws civil. I know that Aristotle in the first book of his Politics, for a foundation of his doctrine, maketh men by nature, some more worthy to command, meaning the wiser sort, such as he thought himself to be for his philosophy; others to serve, meaning those that had strong bodies, but were not philosophers as he; as master and servant were not introduced by consent of men, but by difference of wit: which is not only against reason, but also against experience. For there are very few so foolish that had not rather govern themselves than be governed by others: nor when the wise, in their own conceit, contend by force with them who distrust their own wisdom, do they always, or often, or almost at any time, get the victory. If nature therefore have made men equal, that equality is to be acknowledged: or if nature have made men unequal, yet because men that think themselves equal will not enter into conditions of peace, but upon equal terms, such equality must be admitted. And therefore for the ninth law of nature, I put this: that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.
On this law dependeth another: that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right which he is not content should he reserved to every one of the rest. As it is necessary for all men that seek peace to lay down certain rights of nature; that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list, so is it necessary for man's life to retain some: as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in this case, at the making of peace, men require for themselves that which they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law that commandeth the acknowledgement of natural equality, and therefore also against the law of nature. The observers of this law are those we call modest, and the breakers arrogant men. The Greeks call the violation of this law pleonexia; that is, a desire of more than their share.
Also, if a man he trusted to judge between man and man, it is a precept of the law of nature that he deal equally between them. For without that, the controversies of men cannot be determined but by war. He therefore that is partial in judgement, doth what in him lies to deter men from the use of judges and arbitrators, and consequently, against the fundamental law of nature, is the cause of war.
The observance of this law, from the equal distribution to each man of that which in reason belonged to him, is called equity, and (as I have said before) distributive justice: the violation, acception of persons, prosopolepsia.
And from this followeth another law: that such things as cannot he divided be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right. For otherwise the distribution is unequal, and contrary to equity.
But some things there be that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common. Then, the law of nature which prescribeth equity requireth: that the entire right, or else (making the use alternate) the first possession, be determined by lot. For equal distribution is of the law of nature; and other means of equal distribution cannot be imagined.
Of lots there be two sorts, arbitrary and natural. Arbitrary is that which is agreed on by the competitors; natural is either primogeniture (which the Greek calls kleronomia, which signifies, given by lot), or first seizure.
And therefore those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.
It is also a law of nature: that all men that mediate peace he allowed safe conduct. For the law that commandeth peace, as the end, commandeth intercession, as the means; and to intercession the means is safe conduct.
And because, though men be never so willing to observe these laws, there may nevertheless arise questions concerning a man's action; first, whether it were done, or not done; secondly, if done, whether against the law, or not against the law; the former whereof is called a question of fact, the latter a question of right; therefore unless the parties to the question covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another, they are as far from peace as ever. This other, to whose sentence they submit, is called an arbitrator. And therefore it is of the law of nature that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgement of an arbitrator.
And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own benefit, no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause: and if he were never so fit, yet equity allowing to each party equal benefit, if one be admitted to be judge, the other is to be admitted also; and so the controversy, that is, the cause of war, remains, against the law of nature.
For the same reason no man in any cause ought to be received for arbitrator to whom greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth out of the victory of one party than of the other: for he hath taken, though an unavoidable bribe, yet a bribe; and no man can be obliged to trust him. And thus also the controversy and the condition of war remaineth, contrary to the law of nature.
And in a controversy of fact, the judge being to give no more credit to one than to the other, if there be no other arguments, must give credit to a third; or to a third and fourth; or more: for else the question is undecided, and left to force, contrary to the law of nature.
These are the laws of nature, dictating peace, for a means of the conservation of men in multitudes; and which only concern the doctrine of civil society. There be other things tending to the destruction of particular men; as drunkenness, and all other parts of intemperance, which may therefore also be reckoned amongst those things which the law of nature hath forbidden, but are not necessary to be mentioned, nor are pertinent enough to this place.
And though this may seem too subtle a deduction of the laws of nature to be taken notice of by all men, whereof the most part are too busy in getting food, and the rest too negligent to understand; yet to leave all men inexcusable, they have been contracted into one easy sum, intelligible even to the meanest capacity; and that is: Do not that to another which thou wouldest not have done to thyself, which showeth him that he has no more to do in learning the laws of nature but, when weighing the actions of other men with his own they seem too heavy, to put them into the other part of the balance, and his own into their place, that his own passions and self-love may add nothing to the weight; and then there is none of these laws of nature that will not appear unto him very reasonable.
The laws of nature oblige in foro interno; that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take place: but in foro externo; that is, to the putting them in act, not always. For he that should be modest and tractable, and perform all he promises in such time and place where no man else should do so, should but make himself a prey to others, and procure his own certain ruin, contrary to the ground of all laws of nature which tend to nature's preservation. And again, he that having sufficient security that others shall observe the same laws towards him, observes them not himself, seeketh not peace, but war, and consequently the destruction of his nature by violence.
And whatsoever laws bind in foro interno may be broken, not only by a fact contrary to the law, but also by a fact according to it, in case a man think it contrary. For though his action in this case be according to the law, yet his purpose was against the law; which, where the obligation is in foro interno, is a breach.
The laws of nature are immutable and eternal; for injustice, ingratitude, arrogance, pride, iniquity, acception of persons, and the rest can never be made lawful. For it can never be that war shall preserve life, and peace destroy it.
The same laws, because they oblige only to a desire and endeavour, mean an unfeigned and constant endeavour, are easy to be observed. For in that they require nothing but endeavour, he that endeavoureth their performance fulfilleth them; and he that fulfilleth the law is just.
And the science of them is the true and only moral philosophy. For moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good and evil in the conversation and society of mankind. Good and evil are names that signify our appetites and aversions, which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men are different: and diverse men differ not only in their judgement on the senses of what is pleasant and unpleasant to the taste, smell, hearing, touch, and sight; but also of what is conformable or disagreeable to reason in the actions of common life. Nay, the same man, in diverse times, differs from himself; and one time praiseth, that is, calleth good, what another time he dispraiseth, and calleth evil: from whence arise disputes, controversies, and at last war. And therefore so long as a man is in the condition of mere nature, which is a condition of war, private appetite is the measure of good and evil: and consequently all men agree on this, that peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace, which (as I have shown before) are justice, gratitude, modesty, equity, mercy, and the rest of the laws of nature, are good; that is to say, moral virtues; and their contrary vices, evil. Now the science of virtue and vice is moral philosophy; and therefore the true doctrine of the laws of nature is the true moral philosophy. But the writers of moral philosophy, though they acknowledge the same virtues and vices; yet, not seeing wherein consisted their goodness, nor that they come to be praised as the means of peaceable, sociable, and comfortable living, place them in a mediocrity of passions: as if not the cause, but the degree of daring, made fortitude; or not the cause, but the quantity of a gift, made liberality.
These dictates of reason men used to call by the name of laws, but improperly: for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas law, properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others. But yet if we consider the same theorems as delivered in the word of God that by right commandeth all things, then are they properly called laws.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/hills/3678/nature.htm
http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/18law02.htm
Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter.
http://www.jim.com/rights.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.htmlJohn Locke on Natural Law
The first argument can be taken from the evidence of Aristotle at Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, chapter 7, where he says that "the proper function of man is the activity of the soul according to reason"; for once he had proved by various examples that there is a proper function for each thing, he inquired what this proper function is in the case of man; this he sought through an account of all the operations of the faculties both vegetative and sentient, which are common to men along with animals and plants. He arrives finally at the proper conclusion that the function of man is activity according to reason; consequently man must perform those actions which are dictated by reason. Likewise in Book V, chapter 7, in his division of law into civil and natural, he says that "this natural law is that law which has everywhere the same force" ....
http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html
the massive blocks of text drop on my eyelids like tons of marching elephants
Question was: Is USA ready for black president?
My answer is: No
Support for my answer: too many white movement forces, not enough blacks to support one person of their skin to move up the hierarchy.
Question was: Is USA ready for black president?
My answer is: No
Support for my answer: too many white movement forces, not enough blacks to support one person of their skin to move up the hierarchy.
LOLOLOLOLOL. You are not only a dishonest fuker but you are hugely delusional. Really, you must think I've got some special powers as you seem to be stalking me to use me as your personal therapist to listen to your sh*t.
You really are that retarded that you think I or anyone doesn't know that black and white don't commit crimes or hurt eachother??? Really, i dadn't knaww DDat! WEE WEE??? Shut the fuk up.
Your preaching to me about learning to see things on a humanistic level?? HA HA!! You don't think I don't know how to judge character??
You say you've found common ground?? With who?? And you think I don't? The only people I get along with are true egalitarians, you dumbsh*t for brains. Your just egomasturbating and unfortunately on me, you disgusting mental devious pervert.
Oh my gosh, You are a fuking disgusting lowlife! you contradicted yourself so many fuking times. You say you are an american and to be an american you have to accept the good and specifically the bad you don't like. And you stated earlier that americans should be able to pick and choose from other cultures to appropriate as american and reject what they don't like. Do you realize what you are saying?? Of course you don't, you'll turn around and justify and rationalize everything you say. Basically your saying americans have the right to appropriate and exploit those that come into this country and not respect who they are, that they should conform to american values both good and bad. Americans can misbehave but not them because its the american way. Considering the american way at root just like a cpu as the example you like to use is based on white values, Then why two pages of all this bullsh*t of every race is one, timefuker??? You can't even fuking talk for someone outside of your american values you presumptuous sh*t!!!
I can tell by the way you think, as I suspected earlier that you are either white or african american probably the latter and your slimy masquerading in your fake cow one human race persona. You condone all that is american but not all of other cultures and you have the nerve to talk or preach about one human race you disgusting appropriating sh*t. And you think everyone is just the same. I am judging you on your fuking character you despicable moron.
Typical ignorant response from a typical human. Do you consider yourself an American?A Human? or you race? You know my identity, whats yours? Because I know that my identity is not limited to race groups, it does not matter, the race groups are all artificial.
It's simple, if humans scientifically share 90 percent of their genes with each other, and there is more genetic differences between people of the same race than between races, race is simply not real, it's science. You can believe in the illusion if you want to, but people of the same race genetically as you, are likely going to be white, or black, and you won't be able to recognize them even though they have your genes. I'm assuming you are Asian, am I right?
Most Americans are either Euro-white, or Afro-black, or both in some strange mixture. In the end however, there is more genetic differences between two tribes of Europeans than between this mythical white and black races which don't even exist. The same applies to Asian, there is more differences between a Japanese person and a Korean person than there is between the white and black races, in fact, there is more difference between two Koreans than between the races.
You don't seem to get it, but if there is no genetic scientifically proven races, then sure there might be races, but it's a 100% guarentee that the concept we have of races being "white" "black" "yellow" or whatever, are unscientific and false. The difference between an athelete body builder and a skinny weakling is greater than the difference between racial characteristics. This means, within the white,black,yellow or whatever color boxes, you have completely different types, different genetic profiles, different heights, weights, different types of diseases, all sorts of differences exist.
People who want to believe in race will attempt to try and find some genes beyond skin, hair, and appearance to create a sense of race, such as genetic immunities and other things such as this, but you have people in Africa and in Europe who are immune to HIV, and then you have people in Africa and in Europe who are dying of HIV. You also have homosexuals in both places, and you have straights in both places, and you have violent aggress people in both places, so it seems that most of the genes are in every race if not all of them, and the minor exceptions, these exceptions might be what we call evolution. The truth is that the majority of average humans don't have any special racial abilities at all, and while there might be a few Michael Jordans, a few Stephen Hawkings, or Stevie Wonders, or people who are just gifted, the gifted come in all races, and the majority of every race is just average mediocre ignorance.
the massive blocks of text drop on my eyelids like tons of marching elephants
Question was: Is USA ready for black president?
My answer is: No
Support for my answer: too many white movement forces, not enough blacks to support one person of their skin to move up the hierarchy.
So what you are saying is that there are more white racists than black racists, so the white racists will prevent a black President from winning. This is actually a decent rational arguement that I can consider at least.
It's a fact, that while black or minority individuals will vote for people who do not look like them, there are many individuals who happen to be white, who will only vote for people who look like them?
I think we need to change the census and ask people if they are racist or not. It would be interesting to know the racialist demographics, just so we can know how racist each race is. Sure if white/europeans come out on top as most racist, it might be true if we consider whites a complete race, but if we ask which tribe, or which kind of white, or kind of European, I think we could narrow it down and figure it out. Which European race is the most racist?
So what you are saying is that there are more white racists than black racists, so the white racists will prevent a black President from winning. This is actually a decent rational arguement that I can consider at least.
It's a fact, that while black or minority individuals will vote for people who do not look like them, there are many individuals who happen to be white, who will only vote for people who look like them?
in majority will vote for people who look like them. (not only) The appeal of voters is not much because of the skin but behavior and linguistics of the candidate. Blacks do speak totally different and have different priorities...they tend to speak about freedom much more...they also tend to give very meaningfull psychological speeches...white candidates whereas appeal to white voters because of the way they speak that is similar to white people and the focus on details white candidates stress on. And than there is skin color.
I don't know what this fukers problem is, I may get banned for this but i don't care here goes. I am willing to bet timetraveler is specifically african american or if not definitely american as he stated. Many americans do not have a sense of distinct cultural identity. Also because of american egoism, it is very easy for them to adopt the attitude that all cultures or people who enter america are there for any type of appropriation. Now we know that it is un-pc. So some will say there is technically no race but underneath it all its all a guise because they want to appropriate elements of other cultures to bolster their identity without real respect or understanding of it. Its like cultural molestation.
If he really had real respect, He wouldn't have slipped and defended american "culture" both good and bad yet condone the appropriation of other cultures as objects and stated 'i am an american' with comfortable american biases. There is nothing wrong with being an american BUT This one race concept and sharing of cultures is a lie on his part because he will only accept what he picks. A double standard. A culture is not something you pick apart and still say you respect. You either respect it or you don't. If you don't respect the heart of another culture, you don't respect or understand its people. A claim of complete humanistic understanding is utter bullsh*t.
Case Closed.
If he really had real respect, He wouldn't have slipped and defended american "culture" both good and bad yet condone the appropriation of other cultures as objects and stated 'i am an american' with comfortable american biases. There is nothing wrong with being an american BUT This one race concept and sharing of cultures is a lie on his part because he will only accept what he picks. A double standard. A culture is not something you pick apart and still say you respect. You either respect it or you don't. If you don't respect the heart of another culture, you don't respect or understand its people. A claim of complete humanistic understanding is utter bullsh*t.
Case Closed.
in majority will vote for people who look like them. (not only) The appeal of voters is not much because of the skin but behavior and linguistics of the candidate. Blacks do speak totally different and have different priorities...they tend to speak about freedom much more...they also tend to give very meaningfull psychological speeches...white candidates whereas appeal to white voters because of the way they speak that is similar to white people and the focus on details white candidates stress on. And than there is skin color.
That's not exactly true. Barack Obama speaks better than just about everyone in the Senate. Then you have people like Johnnie Cochran who speak so well they can convince a Jury not to convict OJ Simpson.
I think as far as what groups want, you are talking about identity politics. Identity politics are perhaps the reason why America is in the political state it is currently in. There are some things that are more important than identity, like human rights for example. If we don't have human rights, it's not going to matter what the President looks like, speaks like, or behaves like.
Last edited:
I don't know what this fukers problem is, I may get banned for this but i don't care here goes. I am willing to bet timetraveler is specifically african american or if not definitely american as he stated. Many americans do not have a sense of distinct cultural identity. Also because of american egoism, it is very easy for them to adopt the attitude that all cultures or people who enter america are there for any type of appropriation. Now we know that it is un-pc. So some will say there is technically no race but underneath it all its all a guise because they want to appropriate elements of other cultures to bolster their identity without real respect or understanding of it. Its like cultural molestation.
If he really had real respect, He wouldn't have slipped and defended american "culture" both good and bad yet condone the appropriation of other cultures as objects and stated 'i am an american' with comfortable american biases. There is nothing wrong with being an american BUT This one race concept and sharing of cultures is a lie on his part because he will only accept what he picks. A culture is not something you pick apart and still say you respect. You either respect it or you don't. If you don't respect the heart of another culture, you don't respect or understand its people. A claim of complete humanistic understanding is utter bullsh*t.
Case Closed.
you are targeting a specific member of this community and isolating him based on his race...as well as cursing at him.
I believe this goes against SF protocol.
I don't know what this fukers problem is, I may get banned for this but i don't care here goes. I am willing to bet timetraveler is specifically african american or if not definitely american as he stated. Many americans do not have a sense of distinct cultural identity. Also because of american egoism, it is very easy for them to adopt the attitude that all cultures or people who enter america are there for any type of appropriation. Now we know that it is un-pc. So some will say there is technically no race but underneath it all its all a guise because they want to appropriate elements of other cultures to bolster their identity without real respect or understanding of it. Its like cultural molestation.
If he really had real respect, He wouldn't have slipped and defended american "culture" both good and bad yet condone the appropriation of other cultures as objects and stated 'i am an american' with comfortable american biases. There is nothing wrong with being an american BUT This one race concept and sharing of cultures is a lie on his part because he will only accept what he picks. A culture is not something you pick apart and still say you respect. You either respect it or you don't. If you don't respect the heart of another culture, you don't respect or understand its people. A claim of complete humanistic understanding is utter bullsh*t.
Case Closed.
If he really had real respect, He wouldn't have slipped and defended american "culture" both good and bad yet condone the appropriation of other cultures as objects and stated 'i am an american' with comfortable american biases. There is nothing wrong with being an american BUT This one race concept and sharing of cultures is a lie on his part because he will only accept what he picks. A culture is not something you pick apart and still say you respect. You either respect it or you don't.
I do not hate or love cultures based on where they came from. I'm an American, period. Of course I'm going to be defensive when you say stuff about America that I consider offensive. Yes I will admit that there are bad or negative aspects of American culture, and I never said all American cultures are equal, but if you are to become an American citizen, you cannot come here with this attitude that you are culturally superior.
If you hate being American so bad, and if you clearly are not American, then what are you? Claim an identity. If all you can respond with, is name calling, and trying to pin an identity on me, it's the sign of someone who has lost an arguement and has become desperate.
This is typical human nature on your behalf, you can't win, you know you can't win, so now you want to go personal, and throw insults. Yes the case is closed, you lost the debate.
If you hate being American so bad, and if you clearly are not American, then what are you? Claim an identity. If all you can respond with, is name calling, and trying to pin an identity on me, it's the sign of someone who has lost an arguement and has become desperate.
This is typical human nature on your behalf, you can't win, you know you can't win, so now you want to go personal, and throw insults. Yes the case is closed, you lost the debate.
Excuse me?? Your the one who is said your an american and a humanist. I'm not pinning shit on you. A contradiction in terms considering you believe foreigners should accept american culture both good and BAD but americans should pick and choose what they accept about them and their culture?? Can't be two things now can you??? Why do you make such lofty and erroneous claims?? You can't even live up to it yourself?
I'm not desperate, I'm just not a pathological liar and denier as yourself. I also don't put on fronts. If anyone thinks i've lost this argument to you, they are stupid. But i wasn't trying to win an argument against you worthless scumbag, it was the point remember?
I don't care if they ban me, i hope they do. What an idiot. This place is not fuking entertaining. You have no fuking common sense. I am laughing at you.
What is my identity? I am a human being first, second I'm of asian descent and I get along with people of all races, cultures and ethnicities if they respect me as well. Some you are closer to than others, only natural based on common values or not. Believe it or not, that goes for everyone. Isn't it obvious? lol