Caged or Free?

You're right. I do disagree. :laugh:

Connor Lidell wrote: You're right. I do disagree. :laugh:

Therefore the only difference is the ability to imagine something being so.

Everything is mind, after all.

Connor Lidell wrote: Everything is mind, after all.

Which proves my point, your inability to open your mind to possibles enslaves your mind. It cages you and makes you not free. :woohoo:

Whose inability?

Connor Lidell wrote: Whose inability?

Your funny

Connor Lidell wrote: It has nothing to do with morality, Ricky..

I'm confused your statment said it was imoral to keep a bird in a chage?

. There is nothing to discuss when it comes to the morality of keeping a bird caged. The answer is don't keep the bird caged. It's simple. .

So your saying it's imoral to keep a bird in a cage? "Don't seems like a moral statment?



Should they force feed the prisoners? No. That's it. There's no argument about what is "right" and what is "wrong" because they don't matter.

They don't matter? To who? What about this?

And, as for your dog, it doesn't matter. You're dealing with morality, and this has nothing to do with what is moral

I'm confused again? Can my dog be free by choice? That doesn't seem to be a morl issue either.

Ren threw the word rape in the convo to be salacious and to highlight abuse.

Uh, no? I don't think there should be a differenciation between personal violations on the grounds of them being sexual or not. Hence why I used the word rape the way Jestor explained.

Hehe, my point was if the US Govt. let people starve themselves to death while in prison the headlines would read as if they were forcing the prisoners to starve.

True. Then again this issue would not exist if those prisoners were put in a regular prison.

And yes, force feeding does seem like a form of rape...then again many medical things could seem that way. Like keeping 95 year old grandma alive even if she wants to die...and sometimes after she does. Revive her now!

Agreed. I also do not think "duty of care" should pass that boundary. I find the way we treat old people nowadays rather... cruel.

I guess the question is what do you do with enemies of the state? Do you let them commit suicide or do you keep them alive long enough to get the information or leverage that you need? The business of government is not a pretty one.

My guess is there is some dark reason behind them being in guantanamo instead of a regular prison. and why the authorities dont want (at least some of) them to stand trial. It reached the no-return point a long time ago. Even if those people were innocent, found to be innocent and released, they have now become dangerous enemies. If I were the US gvt, considering this is army business, not civil jurisdiction, I'd go for the "stage a riot, take care of the problem with machine guns" option. Or of course, leave them there until they die.

"There is nothing to discuss when it comes to the morality of keeping a bird caged. The answer is don't keep the bird caged. It's simple."

No. I'm saying it doesn't have anything to do with morality. It is not immoral or moral to keep a bird caged. Who cares? There's no morality to it. And, if you do put morality to it, you're projecting unnecessary thoughts.

There is only:

Do you want the bird in the cage? Yes? Then do it. No? Then don't.

Your dog cannot be free or not free. There is no such thing as a free or nonfree dog. Freedom requires understanding of freedom.

Donkey wrote:

Connor Lidell wrote: Whose inability?

Your funny

That was a serious question...