Karl

Nice sustainable meat source and no waste.

You might want to chase up 'the burning man'.

There isn't anything wrong with morals or moral teachings, but I assert that virtues handed down by priests and Gurus are floating virtues disconnected from reality. As such they are dead in the water in terms of providing guidance for living, but as long as you only apply them to yourself then they won't bind others.

Science does nothing of the sort.

Until you have life you can't have compassion. It's a nice secondary virtue. Frugality is impossible to quantify. It is effectively denial of life, which is why the church pushed it. You cannot be satisfied with what you have or you would cease to breathe, eat or drink. If you don't have pride in yourself then you wouldn't begin to have the virtues that you believe in. Indeed, humility requires of necessity, a pride in being humble. Pride isn't arrogance, or false ego, it is a certainty of self living by a set of virtues to achieve and hold specific values. The universe is everything, looking up, down or inward reveals parts of the universe. That I can know that is the most awe inspiring thing.

They are pretty much the Catholic virtues. They make as little sense.

You are not ONLY your body. If you have 'created' an identity then you are not that-this is false ego. There is no realisation of 'who' you are, just drop the false ego as easily as dropping rubbish.

Which is exactly what the new law proposes. As long as you think you are, then you are and people must accept you on that basis. Aldous Huxley predicted this as the fate of humanity-but of course he had an inside track as a collaborator in MK Ultra-We appear to have given up and settling in for the ride to oblivion.

How to define concepts. I will post the rules for definitions here when I get time, but this is just to prevent Junko's thread on the Origin of Mankind spreading to a million pages on definitions of space. So, what is the definition of space. Genus and differentia remember that it isn't a description, it isn't the original origin of the word and it shouldn't be defined by other concrete examples (such as space is like a block of wood, bubble of air etc).

Exactly. Although I have to say the weird Buddhist version has a draw for me as it suggests Brownian motion.

You might be right.

I think the 'in' is secondary, even a red herring. The point of the exercise is to get us to give up our sovereignty by proxy. That is why left an right are united in voting to remain. They want the argument to move away from a UK wide discussion in order that they move to an international, thence a global arena. We are all just a pain getting in the way of their greater vision. It's only the UK, as I understand it, that has the constitutional clout the break away ? The ramifications are an entire European call to move back towards sovereignty and the elite see their plans shredding.

Maybe they aren't interested in the nuts and bolts when there's a battle to win ? The more I read on this subject, the more it becomes apparent that the entire EU project has always been about an elite who are mulching the rest of us. It's aim is to remove all power from the people, whom they believe have been given far too much influence over the elites intellectualism (left wing) and wealth (right wing). The 'pooling of sovereignty' is the device Monnet planned to strip the people's sovereignty and install an elitist shared sovereignty over the people. I don't think people would grasp the import of that letter and it would have little to no effect on the outcome of the referendum. I'm beginning to grasp just what an amazing opportunity we have been given by this referendum. It isn't really a referendum on EU membership, it's a referendum for the people and their right to constitutional rule. If we give it away now, we have given it away for ever. We will have said 'let the elite rule' and will have effectively legalised it through a vote. Boris Johnson let the cat out of the bag by suggesting we might have two votes, then Cameron closed him down because the possibility of a second vote would nullify the first. This is high stakes poker.

With their backs against the wall you mean ? If they did, then they would need to put their back into it and show a bit of spine. Eees no a rat, eees a hamster meester fawlty.

Signed the petition. I've wondered about the constitutional legality of the EU treaty for some time in regard to British membership but never heard anyone else suggest it might be an issue.

Or not facing up to a problem.

Sound reasoning Sir.

Seems unnecessarily over complex. I certainly wouldn't help someone just because I could, or because it might make their lives better. I would help if I thought they were worth helping and needed help.

Then I would guess that those people will be frightened and most will likely vote to remain. I have a lot of sympathy for their position. No attempt has been made by the establishment and its leave campaign, to attempt a serious debate on the subject. Instead it's just fear, fear and more fear. Basically they couldn't give a stuff for the British that have emigrated, except to scare them into voting to remain.

This is one of those questions that assumes a great many things. 1) That many living abroad don't already intend to come home at some point anyway. in fact it's very common for people to live abroad for a couple of years then come home. It's also not unusual for people to live abroad for six months of the year then travel back here in summer/winter. Some will come home if they get ill. 2) people already lived abroad prior to the EU. 3) Britain has no intention and neither would international law allow it to send immigrants home. It isn't exactly unthinkable that this would apply to UK citizens living in other countries. 4) if Europe changes for the worse then many will want to return anyway and there are no guarantees that other countries would drop out of the EU, or ignore open borders as they are currently doing right now. There are no guarantees with any circumstances, things change, the referendum IS things changing and things can change in the EU itself. That's not how it will be spun of course. Instead people are told that it's a choice between a totally stable, unchanging EU and a vastly more unstable EU if we leave-not a vastly more unstable Britain because specifically on this issue it is the EU that is the problem.

Only if people listen to Camerons Shtick-which no doubt they will.

There is no end to planning, but that does not stop anyone enjoying the present. The problem is forever blaming the past, or forever fearing for the future.

But you are planning ahead. This is precisely what you are doing when you decide to 'live in the moment' or when you have already decided to 'forgive each other IN ADVANCE'. You can live anyway you want Bud that your choice, but there is no avoiding future planning no matter how you deny it. We are human and we have no choice but to plan ahead, our choices begin with our own life, we must first choose to live, then we choose how to achieve it. To say you live 'in the moment' when you are writing about 'how you decided' is just blindness.

Spot the violent socialists :-/

Yet we talk about losing ones marbles, so it appears this is a cognitive issue unrelated to metamorphic rock or children's toys.