Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[wags]

Luis,

Thank you. I can say no more.

[wags]

[quote="kevin"]Wags,
Fruitcake declares that He "recruited You"????

This is FB's perception of his motives, I am not in a position to verify it is an accurate account of him. He is the only one that would know for sure.

[LuisP]

Hobbit
If FB “recruited” someone or not, is not the question. It is irrelevant.
What Wags did back then is on the record. He will be the first to know why he did what he did, and how he understands it today regradless of any other's description.

What is relevant is FB's choice of partaking such, and using “recruited” to describe it. He could have chosen another, from several available, “labels”. Also relevant - and above all !! - is the fact to further divulge the absolutely inconsequential – amidst the context chosen to do it – personal circumstances which the “recruited” person at the time was, allegedly, inserted in.

That post from FB was nothing short but of a vicious blow.

Which (to my way of seeing it, and in simple and succinct terms) FB delivered, because what he is seeing being dealt to a Mother - from a place where chose to be and defend !! – is simply too much for him to sit by, and watch indifferently.


FB is not a bad man.
He is only weak ! And gave in to weakness.

FB
I only hope you will arrive at forgiving yourself. And repent !
Truly.

[wags]

Luis,

I found this and thought you would appreciate this.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02bwhz ... _and_music

It is also apposite here.

[LuisP]

Indeed it is, Wags. Very apposite. But faulty, from where I see this “episode”, for it falls short.

Because, as with everything concerning Immanuel, it leaves room for a “black and white only” judgment, and that is one of the main reasons why I do not subscribe to his propositions, or rather, his deontology, the other main reason being his “theory of duty” simply derived, or existing, as a singular creation of Human Reason, meaning, as if this “condition” were, so to speak, a “gift of nature” inconsequential in itself and, therefore, devoid of a pre-existing, and universal, set of rules “felt”, or understood, by Man everywhere in the globe and among its diversified peoples.

Something which, as evidence abundantly proves, does exist. And on top of that, “grey” also does exist between “white and black”.

So, to me, strictly Kantian approaches are always reductive for in the end, he would have us all turn into “Mr.Spocks”. And Man is much more than that. And that is why, from my perspective, I give FB the benefit of doubt because I’ve (we all have !) seen him struggle with himself on some previous occasions where he also did Wrong and came to realize it, and tried to amend, meaning, he not only is not just “black and white” as he also possesses his own innate “theory of duty” .

That said, I also always saw – and see - Utilitarianism in FB. But not enough to find him, so to speak, despicable as the theory in itself and its practical followers are, but just a bit enough to see that yes, he looks for advantages in the “choices” he makes and doesn’t make them without such considerations. I’ve reasoned this “character fault” as having derived, and built upon, economic necessity (something which FB also mentions frequently as suffering from ) and not from a deficient personality. Which is something I’m sure FB knows perfectly well, and should therefore, I'd like to think, resist to engage in.

This “episode” does not compute, however, with this mild appraisal and to me it showed another, darker, intent.

And that is why I found it so disturbing and truly hope FB takes time to look inside himself, and take weight. For he is, I found, a good man with whom we all shared a bit of ourselves.

Then again, just my way of seeing this.
Don't be too harsh, Wags.

[wags]

I do agree that the presentation does somewhat does a disservice to the approach. The idea of having the personal rule does not preclude finding the best solution that makes everyone happy. It is subtler I feel in that the personal rule is just that, and it leads to better outcomes over time. If a person lies kills their own integrity and say they shout 'fire' who will believe them and the town burns down.

There is more to this than is on the surface Luis.

[LuisP]

There is more to this than is on the surface Luis.

I have no doubts.
At all.


But, in the end, does it justify slicing and burning down something dear, as a friend is ?

That, I'm afraid, is the answer FB will now have to come to grips with.

[wags]

There is more to this than is on the surface Luis.

I have no doubts.
At all.


But, in the end, does it justify slicing and burning down something dear, as a friend is ?

That, I'm afraid, is the answer FB will now have to come to grips with.

Indeed, I am aware of that pitfall.

[LuisP]

We all, at one point or another in life, will "have a cross to bear".

One may not share this notion, but I think that its meaning, and what I mean by it, is clear by itself, regardless of the context it comes from.


Once that happens, once the weight is felt on one's shoulders, things will get clear.
And one will know something about himself.

At least, that's what my experience tells me.

[wags]

We all, at one point or another in life, will "have a cross to bear".

One may not share this notion, but I think that its meaning, and what I mean by it, is clear by itself, regardless of the context it comes from.


Once that happens, once the weight is felt on one's shoulders, things will get clear.
And one will know something about himself.

At least, that's what my experience tells me.

Not always, some are fated to not learn something, and repeat forever.. and ever... and ever...