| scavenger hunt |
[Dec. 21st, 2005|09:26 pm] |
Here are the rules. Follow the clues to get to the end. Each clue will have a secret string that you will need at the end of the hunt. Note: the text below has been changed since the original post.
Eight and eight is the basis of this clue.
c3VuLml3dS5lZHUvfmpqYXNpbnNrLyBpcyB0aGUgc291cmNlIG9mIHRoZSBuZXh0IGNsdWUK
ClNlY3JldCBwaHJhc2UgMTogb2xvdXNpZWwKCgoKCgpNb3JlIHRleHQgaGVyZSBhZGRlZCBq
dXN0IHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlIGVuY29kZWQgc3RyaW5nIGxvb2sgbW9yZSBpbnRpbWlkYXRpbmcK |
|
|
| Morals and Mark Maguire |
[Dec. 14th, 2005|08:45 pm] |
Now for my lecture on morals. This is an excerpt from an Email that I sent to a group of friends about 3 years ago after a vigorous debate.
Morals are very elusive. They are basic theolotgical/socital
constructs that have developed over time. Many of us see morals as
what is right and what is wrong. One who has good morals is someone
who knows the difference between right and wrong and who chooses to
live by what is right. However, morals are by no means absolute.
Ethical relativism and cultural relativism are concepts that refer to
people's differing moral standards. What is right in one culture may
be very wrong in another. What is right for one person may be very
wrong for another. Therefore, morals are based on an individual
basis, only to be guided by societal influences such as family,
religion, culture, background, etc.
For this reason, morals cannot be depended upon to structure a society.
Individuals can hold firmly to their own morals (which is good), but
US society, by its very nature a diverse "tossed-salad" of different
people with differing values, cannot and should not impose a common
set of morals on its residents. Consequently, this is were the law
comes in.
The law offers a compromise of morals in society. Though the
political process dilutes the meaning of some laws and some laws are
the result of the rich suppressing the pour, the theory behind the law
is that it provides a basic framework for how all citizens should
live. The law is a measuring stick that
all citizens can be measured with. It includes people who conform to
the morals of the majority and those with differing morals. Also, in
this society, the law provides us with the ability to peaceably change
those standards with which it
imposes on us (yes, I know, the political process screws with it
sometimes, but the theory is sound).
If Mark Maguire wants to take dietary sublements, there is not
necessarily a breech of morals. Simply, the morals of his critics
conflict with his morals. Neither Mark Maguire nor his critics are
right or wrong since right and wrong are relative principles.
Similarly, the events in Nazi Germany cannot be regarded as right or
wrong. I personally detest the events that occurred there, but that
is simply my opinion and MY morals. It so happens that many people
share my opinion. However, the
morals of many Germans during that time told them otherwise. To them,
right and wrong had an entirely different meaning. Morals simply
cannot be counted on
further than on an individual basis.
Well, why am I writing this? Well, four against one is never fun... I
seem to be encountering that often these days :-). I am also very
board...
However, I do believe that blatant statements regarding morality
deserve critique.
And,
MARK MAGUIRE WAS NOT CHEATING.
See ya in a bit guys!
Joe |
|
|
| Intro |
[Dec. 7th, 2005|08:03 pm] |
As my initial entry in this online “Blog" of sorts, I would first like to start with a disclaimer:
I find the whole concept of online journaling to be fairly dishonest. As one strives to inflate ones' ego and "teach" people something about oneself, always somewhere there exists a portion of ones' writing that does not truly represent ones thoughts and feelings. I am doing that at this very moment.
It is my belief that a person's true character is reflected only in what he or she does when no one else is watching. This is true because, without the distraction of an audience, a person has neither to worry about boasting nor fear ridicule form other people. Therefore, the only true form of journaling would be a private journal (and since I am a traditionalist, a written journal), which no external audience would ever have an opportunity to view.
However, in my case, I feel as though this is not possible for me to even create an honest private journal, as I would always feel as though (and hope that), perhaps, in some distant future, someone other than myself would read it. I certainly don't wish to write a journal for myself, as my writing so inadequately expresses my feelings that, if I were to look back on my writing in some distant date, I would always look down upon it with disdain. Certainly, as I look back upon this opening entry, I will realize what a pretentious ass I was, pontificating about how pointless this is.
Perhaps one day, I won't feel as though I am selling out to some sort of fad, and will feel like producing some content that someone might enjoy. (I'm really not a bitter person; I just pretend to be one when I am being self-righteous).
Cheers.
(Note about user experience: my first experience with livejournal and already, the site freezes my web-browser and also replaces all occurrences of quotes with question marks) |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
joejaz2's journal