War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and
has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> The person who has nothing for which he is
> willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
> safety, is a miserable creature,

Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great -- but the
fascist State jonnie supports is grounded on making SOMEBODY ELSE
fight for what you want. That's what war is: making somebody
else fight your battles for you, usually somebody too poor and
powerless to get somebody to tweak the system for him, like Dubya's
dad did for him. Now Dubya is STILL sending other people to war
to get killed for what Dubya wants.

gotta love 'im, eh, jonnie? He's just your type.


Rat
<snip>

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:39:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
> The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
> feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
> worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
> willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
> his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and
> has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by
> the exertions of better men than himself.
>
> John Stuart Mill

Perhaps, but isn¡¦t passionate intensity without conviction (as WB Yeats
forewarned) a reckless endeavor? It is quite one thing to claim that there
are values and principles worth fighting and dying for. It is quite
another to insinuate that a pacifist holds these values and principles less
dear than anyone else ¡Vat least, that¡¦s the impression that I get reading
this quote. I¡¦m not beneath admitting that perhaps I¡¦m reading too much
into it.

I agree with the author that a life without conviction is indeed empty and
(some would argue) purposeless; but, as Bertrand Russell wrote, ¡§When the
intensity of emotional conviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of
reasoning will search for logical grounds in favour of the belief which he
finds in himself.¡¨ In matters as weighty as war, do we not have a moral
obligation to seek the logical grounds *before* succumbing to the whims of
emotion? It is precisely this failure to check impulsiveness with the
temperance of diplomacy that brings us the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

I see this kind of quasi-patriotic criticism used a lot lately to defend
the foreign (and arguably the domestic) policy of my country¡¦s current
administration, inasmuch as it applies to human rights; however, I would
not go so far as to claim that my country overthrew an Iraqi dictator
*solely* or even primarily for the realization of such lofty goals as
¡§empowering the Iraqi people¡¨ or ¡§buying them a greater measure of freedom
with our superlative exertions¡¨. On the contrary, that is all so much
political icing on the cake, so to speak. Had these end results been my
government¡¦s greatest reason for our intervention in Iraq, I would not only
have supported it, I would have questioned what the hell took so long.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing
>> which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
>> creature,
>
>
> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great

No, you wouldn't fight for anything. You are exactly
whom Mill is condemning.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>
>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great

> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.

Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
in over the years, often against considerable odds ( 300 or so to one in
at least one case; several thousand to 12 in another...). I've never
killed anyone, if that's what you consider so wonderful -- but then,
I don't consider killing people to be the proof of one's moral
courage.

You simply do not understand anything about who I am. That's why
your insults and lies never resemble the truth in any way, and
no one believes them.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
> in over the years, often against considerable odds ( 300 or so to one in
> at least one case; several thousand to 12 in another...). I've never
> killed anyone, if that's what you consider so wonderful -- but then,
> I don't consider killing people to be the proof of one's moral
> courage.

Yeah, yeah - you "fought" over some inconsequential
thing like agitating before a city council over making
the dog pound a "no-kill" facility.

You've never been faced with death. Stop trying to
inflate your symbolic ****ing-in-the-ocean protests to
appear comparable to REAL hazard faced by others. The
comparison is obscene, and only serves to illustrate
your moral bankruptcy.

You would not fight to the death for anything. No
marginal would.

>
> You simply do not understand anything about who I am.

I understand exactly who and what you are, you ****ing
marginal.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
> in over the years

Nope. Not for anything big. The second part of Mill's
quote is especially applicable to you:

The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and
has no chance of being free unless made or kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself.

You are SO OBVIOUSLY a miserable; all the feigned
delight in visits to art galleries displaying
pornography fools no one. You're a zero, you know
you're a zero, and your agony loudly precedes you by
100 miles. You are "...free...by the exertions of
better men than [you]." The knowledge of that makes
you that much more miserable.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> You've never been faced with death.
<snip>

Well, actually, I have, and I still carry the literal scars in my
flesh to prove it. But I didn't panic, and I managed to escape.
That's why I know I do have the physical courage to face physical
threat of death if necessary. It was a good lesson and improved my
self-confidence considerably.

Rat
<snip>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>

>> Well, actually, I have, and I still carry the literal scars in my
>> flesh to prove it. But I didn't panic, and I managed to escape.
>> That's why I know I do have the physical courage to face physical
>> threat of death if necessary. It was a good lesson and improved my
>> self-confidence considerably.

> More BULLSHIT equivocation. A car accident you caused yourself from
> being drunk does not count.

*snicker* You lie reflexively, jonnie. I have never been drunk
in my life. I've never been injured in a car accident. You see why no
one believes the lies you invent out of whole cloth.

Do tell us about your own heroic war experiences, jonnie. Watch
us laugh....

<snip>

Rat

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> >> Rat & Swan wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
> >
> >
> >> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
> >
> >
> > Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
> > in over the years
>
> Nope. Not for anything big. The second part of Mill's
> quote is especially applicable to you:
>
> The person who has nothing for which he is willing
> to fight, nothing which is more important than his
> own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and
> has no chance of being free unless made or kept so
> by the exertions of better men than himself.
>
> You are SO OBVIOUSLY a miserable; all the feigned
> delight in visits to art galleries displaying
> pornography fools no one. You're a zero, you know
> you're a zero, and your agony loudly precedes you by
> 100 miles. You are "...free...by the exertions of
> better men than [you]." The knowledge of that makes
> you that much more miserable.

I think you missed the question about *Your* war experiences ~~jonnie~~
>

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Well, actually, I have, and I still carry the literal scars in my
>>> flesh to prove it. But I didn't panic, and I managed to escape.
>>> That's why I know I do have the physical courage to face physical
>>> threat of death if necessary. It was a good lesson and improved my
>>> self-confidence considerably.
>
>
>> More BULLSHIT equivocation. A car accident you caused yourself from
>> being drunk does not count.
>
>
> I have never been drunk in my life.

I don't believe that.

> I've never been injured in a car accident.

Irrelevant. Let's put back the part you unethically
snipped out that IS relevant:

You have not *gone into a conflict* in which you
knew you would face death. Your sudden, UNEXPECTED
encounter with the possibility of death did not
arise in the context of fighting for something in
which you believe, which is the ONLY relevant context.

Why did you lie? Why did you try to change the
context? You have no integrity. You shit.


No answer, right? You fraudulently tried to change to
context, to a morally meaningless episode of PASSIVELY
facing death, when you knew that's not the point.

Do you begin to understand why you are viewed as the
most dishonest poster ever to appear here?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>

>> <snip>

>>>> Well, actually, I have, and I still carry the literal scars in my
>>>> flesh to prove it. But I didn't panic, and I managed to escape.
>>>> That's why I know I do have the physical courage to face physical
>>>> threat of death if necessary. It was a good lesson and improved my
>>>> self-confidence considerably.

>>> More BULLSHIT equivocation. A car accident you caused yourself from
>>> being drunk does not count.

>> I have never been drunk in my life.

> I don't believe that.

I suspected you wouldn't. It must be hard for someone like you to
imagine someone who doesn't drink to excess. However, it's true. If
you'd think for a moment, you would know why. But then -- you never do.

>> I've never been injured in a car accident.

> Irrelevant.

Except to refute another of your lies.

Let's put back the part you unethically snipped out that IS
> relevant:

> You have not *gone into a conflict* in which you
> knew you would face death.

Goalpost move, jonnie: typical of you, and typically shoddy.
Your earlier post claimed I had never "faced death." I have.
I agreed I'd never killed anyone. There is more than one
way of facing death. I still have scar tissue from my brush
with it. I went into the situation knowing other people had
been killed under the same circumstances, and that death was,
indeed, _possible_ any day. Not terribly likely -- but then,
most days in the Army the soldier doesn't "face death" either.

(btw -- I do have the newspaper clipping to verify my story.)

And where were those stories about your heroic war experiences,
eh, jonnie? When did you face death for any reason, jonnie?

Rat

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:50:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>You failed at marriage, you failed to earn a
>living, you failed in your most basic duty of being a
>mother to your son

Your drunken father left you and his family
while you were all very young, and this, by
your own admission has left you all very bitter.

"I was 9 when they split.
.......
I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously
affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I
seen how wrong I was.

My older brother and younger brother both have led
thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has
had any career success at all. My younger brother
bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in
a firing. He hardly has a pot to **** in. My older
brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger
has been married and divorced twice; older has been
married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him).
My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing
okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once.
I think she's done relatively better than my brothers
in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea
what was going on at the time."
Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/v50s

Is the memory of your father's rejection of you a part
of these constant attacks on other people's families, Jon?

Who can only try to make a point by inventing lie upon lie
about the personal life of his opponents. Sad case, jonnie.

But none of us depends on jonnie for validation of our lives or
characters. We KNOW he's a liar.

Where are jonnie's stories of his heroic war service?

Rat

And when were you planning to describe facing death
during your heroic war service, jonnie?

Rat

And when were you going to describe facing death in your heroic wartime
service, jonnie?

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
> in over the years, often against considerable odds

We're not talking about the meaningless symbolic things
for which you fight at no risk to yourself. We're
talking about being willing to fight for something at
risk to your life. You could never do it.

And when were you planning to tell us about facing death during your
heroic war service, jonnie?

Rat

>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I
believe
> in over the years, often against considerable odds


We're not talking about the meaningless symbolic things
for which you fight at no risk to yourself. We're
talking about being willing to fight for something at
risk to your life. You could never do it.

And when were you planning on telling us about how you faced death
during your heroic war service, jonnie?

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I believe
> in over the years, often against considerable odds

We're not talking about the meaningless symbolic things
for which you fight at no risk to yourself. We're
talking about being willing to fight for something at
risk to your life. You could never do it.

O.K. -- it's obvious you're not even going to deny you've never
"fought for anything".


I know I can face physical threat of death if need be; I carry the
physical scars in my flesh to prove it. Envy me, little man.
Little, gutless, hypocritical man... I'm laughing at you -- and so
is everyone else.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> I know I can face physical threat of death if need be;

Nope. Not *knowing* you face it. You're gutless.
Your "facing" death was passive; you didn't know you
were about to do so, and you probably didn't even do so
at all.

You could never go into something knowing you were
going to face death. You're a coward; the worst sort
of craven coward there is.


>>> Yeah -- being willing to fight for something is great
>
>
>
>> No, you wouldn't fight for anything.
>
>
>
> Again, a lie. I've fought for a variety of things I
believe
> in over the years, often against considerable odds


We're not talking about the meaningless symbolic things
for which you fight at no risk to yourself. We're
talking about being willing to fight for something at
risk to your life. You could never do it.