{    Cnytr   }

I am 8% evil.




I am an Angel. I rarely sin which makes my life pretty boring. But [...] [G]od [...] will likely reward me in the afterlife.


Are you evil? find out at Hilowitz.com


Yaaaaay, I'm only 8% evil. I'm less evil than Sarah. hahaa.

Speaking of Sarah, a reply to her comments:

What we really need to do in this country is make the nude form (male and female) more acceptable. On British TV, they can have nudity on broadcast TV... and in general I'd say that nudity itself is neither good nor bad, just that when it is taboo, it is more likely to lead to perversion and deviation and will be associated with other taboo things which ARE bad, like promiscuity, etc.

I highly disagree.

Think of what people want when they seek out pornography ... they seek to be sexually aroused, and such images of the nude human form arouse them. Why? Because this is what the nude human form is meant to do. Why? Well ... the species has to continue somehow, to put it crudely. Arousal prepares a person to engage in the sexual act, whose proper context is marriage. And since that is its proper and natural context, then it follows that one *should* only see a nude person -- their spouse -- before engaging in the marital act with them.

If we were to purposefully desensitize people soas not to be aroused by the nude human form ... then that would really stink. Also, it would be highly unnatural, as the word "desensitization" seems to suggest. Arousal is not de facto a bad thing. Out of proper *context* it is, but the thing itself is a beautiful thing... I would philosophize and say why, but er... I fear saying something that sounds silly (I'll read "Theology of the Body" before I go into more depth in this area). To be desensitized to such a beautiful thing is just ... dumb. And a bad thing. It would be like never being able to appreciate music, seeing it merely as "noise" or as a "distraction" or "something to do". Or looking at Mt. Ranier and seeing merely a geological formation. It's like those people who say that love is only a chemical reaction.

And about the American justice system... it doesn't say "American men are created equal," it says, "All men are created equal." If we believe that really truly, then we should wish that same freedom and regard for all human beings, and not just for Americans -- which is why a lot of people (myself included) really support our actions in Iraq, and not because of the "evidence" of WMDs or terrorism or anything else. It's sort of like helping some poor woman out who is being attacked on the street -- even if the situation's not your fault, there's still a degree to which it's your responsibility to at least ATTEMPT to protect her from her assail[ant ~SMM]. And Saddam, I believe, was and is a dangerous and evil man.

I too support our actions in Iraq, but if we were to attempt to fix everyone's problems -- and I mean EVERYone's PROBlems -- we would be totally decimated. We do have to protect our own interests to some degree as well, or else we're not much good to anyone. I.e. A leader (of troops, say) has people's lives depending on him. He won't be much good to anybody dead. He has to protect himself so that he can protect his troops -- but at the same time he must lead from the front. It's a difficult balance sometimes.

In the case of America, our part is done, or almost done. We've handed over sovereignty, and Iraq is going to have to function as its own entity for a while. Not to say we won't help it out, but we can't baby them either (if one can really "baby" Iraq ... a baby with sharp fangs that bites your fingers off to short, bloody stumps...).

American citizens get the benefit of America. That's why we're Americans and not Czechs or something. Schroeder's wicked taxation in Germany doesn't affect us, and we don't give social security to Visigoths and spiders. Why? Because they're not American. If we were to give all our benefits to *every*body, we'd go bankrupt and there'd be nothing great about being American, except our history and heritage. History and heritage are great, but when you're starving, they don't do much for you.

The scenario you describe with the woman does not apply, because that is a case involving individuals. In the case of countries, there are much more than individuals -- the people of a particular country depend on that country, and that country can't just up and leave them for the sake of some other country. I am in no way advocating that countries only help each other when its to the country's own benefit, but that countries need to be *practical* in doing so.

Also: of course terrorists deserve justice. But on the other hand, do we trust their own countries to give them what we would consider justice? Their crimes were not against their own countries anyway.

This is a good point (the latter). The former is, I believe, addressed above.

I agree and disagree -- terrorists do strike us, but they also strike their own countries. The whole Taliban regime was a terrorist regime.

I don't know enough to finish addressing the question of why terrorists ought not to have the benefit of the American justice system... someone smart care to help me out? JohnE (if you still read this blog)? Tom? (in fact, any comment on this particular entry would be extremely appreciated)