|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Indira on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 00:37:06 :
In Reply to: for the sake of anarchy and freedom posted by Anitah on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 23:33:37 :
if you could possibly read my post again, maybe you could find several reasons not to dismiss it as you have done.
first of all, I do not oppose violence.
because it's natural. I don't oppose similar forces struggling with each other.
I don't dislike violence myself, although none of us can determine when it is applied with justice and when it is not.
that, on the other hand doesn't mean I am not a pacifist, I am, in the sense that I don't believe in the resolution of conflicts by the use of force and violence, be it physical, economical, moral, or scientific.
but violence is as natural as everything else, it's part of us, and I do not blush when someone becomes violent with someone of the same strenght and ability to oppose him.
I do dislike, when someone uses special skills, like a greater physical force, or like a better trained mind, against a weaker, defenseless being.
but on the other hand, there are games that are played by two. there are calls for action and reaction that are heard, and followed, and the results of those games, are always negative.
what I mean is, when two people, who hang out together, everytime they are in public, raise an argument on something, no matter if that is world wealth, or black shoes, and that argument always leads to nowhere, and it's all about provocative reactions, I get tired, and get away from it.
the result of it, most of the times, as I have said in my post, is irrelevance.
everything becomes irrelevant, but them.
the other people there, the original subject, the place, and what remains from it, is a frustrating feeling of having spent time in nothing.
Let's not confuse violence, with violent games, and not confuse freedom with peace and welfare.
they have always been different subjects that suppose different and vast treatment, all of them.
If you have a definition of anarchy, that presuposes welfare and peace, fine for you.
but I don't.
anarchy is for me FREEDOM.
to do, say, think, and be whatever one is able to, and feels like.
and inside of that freedom, we do get hurt and unprotected.
if you want protection on the internet, that's fine. I am not the one who¿s going to judge anyone's attitudes.
If you read my post again, you will find out I kindly asked for a little respect and tranquillity for the rest of the people that come here, to both of them, because I think they have both their reasons to act the way they do, that could be valid, if it was not for the overall result.
It woudl be very easy for me to ban joe, if I wanted to, but I would never do that.
there are a hundreth discussion boards, where you can have peace and a license agreements.
I believe in freedom, for both sides, as long as we are talking about individuals and not institutions. Violence and chaos are both sources of inspiration and thought, but none of them are nice pictures hanging on walls, they do come from the inside, and feel awful.
this is what I have done out of this place, and it is not joe or denso who will make me change my mind. I will not stop this place from being free, for a couple of people who might misuse it, or dismiss it.
and I will not refrain from it, because a couple of guys don't know how to address people. there are a million ways of violence, that are not discussed here, and should be, and that do have an influence on the way we live, to spend time and Kbytes with joe and denso. if something gets out of my hands, I might take some action to prevent this place from dying again, but I will not tranform it to make it confortable for anyone.
And of course I know what other sites have done in order to prevent spam and the like.
Ok for them, but no need to teach me as if I was a newcomer to the internet. My name ain't yahoo, I don't make a dime out of this, and I do it out of personal enjoyment and happiness. I do not have a 3200 html pages hand coded to get a life out of it, or to make it feel like some other place. this is how I feel, and the way I feel confortable in life, and what I can give to some other people who might find it ok too. it started as a personal experiment, but life is unpredictable sometimes, and it got me a job and quite a lot of mental blow outs from time to time.
this is what I give. take it or leave it, no offence, but please, anitah, don't aim at me for not being at the height of your expectations.
this is NOT america, it is NOT hosted there, it does not respond to your american laws, and it can be turned off with my left foot in a second and formatted 120 times in 30 seconds. it's so easy to be free..
about your analogy with god, well, no, this is not a shinny beach, but a black html, or a damn fucking hole, I ain't god, but a poor bastard doing my best to be happy and survive, and if people stop making love for this guy..well.. I don't know..obviously this guy had his reasons to do this, and you're proving him right. If he's stronger than your will and your pleasure, then, there's nothing I can do about it, and on the other hand, if I were god, which I'm not, and no webpage would ever make me feel like that of course, well, I would have either made mankind all alike, or bare the consequences of free will. but, since I'm not god, and cannot undo the world, then, I do bare the consequences of free will and black shoes, and kindly ask for respect.
to finish this post, there is something that bothers me, it is to argue about anything. for example, black backgrounds. are they ok? are they wrong? should I consider mankind and make it a white background with black text? should I use arabic font instead of arial?
My previous post was about telling sprat and joe to stop the yes no argument please. not intended to tell who was right, and who had the right to complain. You answer me, about my unability to properly define anarchy. to me, a definition of anarchy is total and complete freedom, no buts, no ifs, no in case this and that. don't I have the right and the duty to make a web site with a discussion board who follows that statement, given that everyday life is miles away from anarchy, and every act of our lives is regulated and recorded? should I change that, because of Joe? is he SO important, is he worth me giving up?
c'mon, I don't think so.
p.s. "all freedoms are protected except .."?
Does that include death penalty?
Post a Followup