Author

Topic: Hide and Seek - What do you think of sheeps that harbor wolves? (Read 784 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
It is impossible to harbor the criminals forever. He has done something illegal or immoral, he has to face the consequence and get a hard lesson.

Quote from: Alan Pratt, Nihilism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy link=http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
. . .

In his study of meaninglessness, Donald Crosby writes that the source of modern nihilism paradoxically stems from a commitment to honest intellectual openness. "Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair" (The Specter of the Absurd, 1988). When sincere inquiry is extended to moral convictions and social consensus, it can prove deadly, Crosby continues, promoting forces that ultimately destroy civilizations. Michael Novak's recently revised The Experience of Nothingness (1968, 1998) tells a similar story. Both studies are responses to the existentialists' gloomy findings from earlier in the century. And both optimistically discuss ways out of the abyss by focusing of the positive implications nothingness reveals, such as liberty, freedom, and creative possibilities. Novak, for example, describes how since WWII we have been working to "climb out of nihilism" on the way to building a new civilization.

In contrast to the efforts to overcome nihilism noted above is the uniquely postmodern response associated with the current antifoundationalists. The philosophical, ethical, and intellectual crisis of nihilism that has tormented modern philosophers for over a century has given way to mild annoyance or, more interestingly, an upbeat acceptance of meaninglessness.

. . .
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1016
It is impossible to harbor the criminals forever. He has done something illegal or immoral, he has to face the consequence and get a hard lesson.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
Hi,

It's a rhetorical question that could be applied to many situation, I don't think it's right to say that anyone is for peace while at the same time harboring criminals. The problem is that sometimes harboring, or not resisting to a criminal - terror group from within could be from the Empire perspective called an act of assistance, which may automatically flag you as an enemy of the Empire. All the enemies of the Empire have died.

So some people have to start to think a little bit. you can't be against theft and let thieves live among you, you can't be against murderers and harbor murderers among you... or to rephrase it closer to the truth, yes you can welcome who ever you want among you, but welcoming the enemies of the Empire, may lead to the meeting with the Empire's Forces.

To illustrate my point of view. A mother support her son that is a rapist. Every day the mother do everything that no one in the neighbor could have an idea that her son is a rapist. Once upon a time the force learn about it, the mother refuse to open the door... the next day she lies with her dead son in the graveyard.

So why do you think that those that say they want to live in peace never move a little finger to stop those among them that are doing the work of evil? Are they afraid? Do they believe that the criminals will go away or win? What does it tell about them as parents, as they can't even provide a criminal free playing field for their Children?
Jump to: