The Shark Dive at Nassau

"Matthias Voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:dkgrcp$lik$02$1@news.t-online.com...

> No. It is a deviation called sadism.
> Look at the fun we would have had had he missed her.

Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly...

"Lee Bell" wrote in message news:V6Paf.1765$td.750@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Seems I recall something that might suggest otherwise. Let me see, yes,
> that's it. "Thou shalt not kill." If I'm not mistaken that's a moral, or
> maybe ethical commandment.

If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation...

> Different issue, at least they claim it is. There's a presumption that a
> moutain lion that loses his fear of humans sufficiently to kill and eat
one,
> will kill and eat more. The only choices I know of to prevent that are to
> cage the animal, in a zoo, for example, or to kill it.

Yep, need to ween it from todlers and give it a taste for zookeepers...
<evil-grin>

> Tough call. First, you have to define waste. You might consider a shark
> that is caught, finned and dumped at sea as wasted. Others, not me in
> particular, might feel differently based on the fact that his body is
> returned to the food chain it came from. I'm not all that concerned with
> the waste, but I am concerned with the greed. Kill one shark, once in a
> while, for your own soup and I don't particularly mind. Kill thousands
and
> I mine very much. You're taking more than your fair share.

I figure that if you kill a shark, you should be eating shark filets for
awhile...

> Name one.

Mosquitos
Fire Ants
Cockroaches
Silverfish
Rats / Mice
Chihuahuas
Dachshunds

"Lee Bell" wrote in message
news:diPaf.1787$td.1494@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules.
> Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were
> practical rather than moral. The penalty for a murder conviction is
> intended as punishment and deterrent to future murders, not because murder
> is so morally bad, but because it's so damned undesirable if you're the
> victim.

What I'm saying though is that the original basis for these laws is morally
derived... The entire list of "thou shalt not" type of things... Of course,
there's different levels of "morals" and as such, Prohibition attacked one
of the lesser ones...

>Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BlTaf.50128$5e4.41707@tornado.texas.rr.com...

> > "Scott" wrote in message news:cd2dnfrEW7IaZvbeRVn-hg@wavecable.com...
> < Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly...

> He wasn't smart enough to keep his fly zipped either...

Check your e-mail.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:diPaf.1787$td.1494@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>> We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules.
>> Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were
>> practical rather than moral. The penalty for a murder conviction is
>> intended as punishment and deterrent to future murders, not because murder
>> is so morally bad, but because it's so damned undesirable if you're the
>> victim.
>
> The victim doesn't care much after the fact. It's the victim's family and
> others who might depend on him or her that suffer the most. I believe in
> moralistic biblical times, you had to adopt the wife and children of the man
> you killed. Or maybe you had to kill her too and eat the children, I forget
> which.


obviously a lawyer problem...


>
>

"Matthias Voss" wrote

>> Why don't we tell them instead to not live in a fuckin' desert?
>
> So transplanting them to Las Vegas would not help?

I don't tell you where to live, or pay for you to move someplace else if
where you used to live proves to be undesirable. Why should I do more for
somebody I don't know than for somebody I kind of do?

Lee

"Matthias Voss" wrote

> Not quite. Linguistic efforts in the bibles language tell us that they had
> different words for different ways of crossing the Styx river.

Hey, the words were written by God, on tablets of stone, and sent do the
faithful as commandments. I have to think that they meant what they said .
.. . unless of course, you think God made a mistake.

> "Thou shalt not murder" would be a more appropriate transliteration.

Not having seen the tablets, I can neither agree nor disagree.

> Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many
> occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side.
> Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns.

Darned if I know, ask God.

Lee

"Grumman-581" wrote

> What I'm saying though is that the original basis for these laws is
> morally
> derived... The entire list of "thou shalt not" type of things... Of
> course,
> there's different levels of "morals" and as such, Prohibition attacked one
> of the lesser ones...

I know. What I'm saying is that, rather than being based on morality, they
are based on self interest and greed. Nobody seems to have cared when we
killed others. It was only when we suspected that we were likely to be
victims that we passed laws, and sentences, to try to ensure that didn't
happen.

Lee

Lee Bell wrote:

> "Matthias Voss" wrote
>
>
>>Not quite. Linguistic efforts in the bibles language tell us that they had
>>different words for different ways of crossing the Styx river.
>
>
> Hey, the words were written by God, on tablets of stone, and sent do the
> faithful as commandments. I have to think that they meant what they said .
> . . unless of course, you think God made a mistake.


God said to Abraham "kill me a son". Among else. Later, for
instance, when his smoking flying saucer led the israelite
tribes through the Sinai, he ordered that each of his avidst
followers should kill members of their own family.
Later, they were to slaughter on command several ethnic
groups who's land they were told to occupy.
Nobody even told them about oil.

>>"Thou shalt not murder" would be a more appropriate transliteration.
>
>
> Not having seen the tablets, I can neither agree nor disagree.

No need to, imho. You cannot equate the disapproved
"killing" of the ten commandments with the approved killings
following the laws f.i. given in the Levitics.
To make a difference, this difference should at least be
found in the language, and lost in later translations,
because other translators didn't care to elaborate.

>
>
>>Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many
>>occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side.
>>Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns.
>
>
> Darned if I know, ask God.

May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then.

Matthias

Matthias Voss wrote:
..
> >>Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns.
> >
> >
> > Darned if I know, ask God.
>
> May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then.
>
Not enough range.

Geo