Thank you all. You gave me some gas for the tank. Back at it . . .

Thanks. I was writing a novel and left this forum to better focus. Now I'm going back through what I wrote to tighten things up. I needed some help and you people never fail to come through. I look forward to mulling over responses. :nerd:

For me it’s a matter of conscience. Weigh the good (the exposure of war crimes, transparency, knowledge of how the govt. spends our money, election meddling) with the bad (not sure what the bad is). If I ask myself if Assange deserves this treatment the answer is clearly “no”. — NOS4A2

Well, that's an honest answer. Thanks. I guess for the bad, you would look at all the countries that do not give Assange counter-parts any due process of law, at all. Well, unless their law considers what they got "due process." But I don't hear anyone whining about that. Thus my curiosity.

Anyway, my power keeps going on and off so I'm going to shut off the computer till the storm blows over. In the meantime, if anyone has any constructive ideas on how I am to tell a gnat from an agent provocateur, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I'll be left to doing what I perceive a lot of people here doing: Considering the source and the hyperbolic language that they use.

RIP to all those who didn't get notice and an opportunity to be heard before being killed or sent to a gulag.

Teaching is a collaborative, not a combative activity. — Isaac

:rofl:

How does it 'seem like...' they're telling the truth? Do their words come out with glitter on? — Isaac

And yours? You are making my point. How to tell, how to tell. Crickets.

Regarding your cites: They make my case. I see the white nationalist agenda and the division long before Trump. Trump was just Putin's bitch.

as a result of low public confidence in the government. The report stresses that this was strongly in evidence prior to the presidential election that saw Donald Trump become president. — https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/which-are-the-worlds-strongest-democracies/

Yeah, I wonder why? DOH! No thanks to the nationalist populist conservative Republican useful idiots of Putin.

By any moral measure, not only did Assange do nothing wrong, he was doing good. The United States government, it’s allies in Europe, are the bad guys in this affair. — NOS4A2

Meh. Like I said, Big Boy Rules apply. (Well, in Manning's case, Big Girl Rules Apply. How would that have happened in any country but the U.S.? Kind of contradicts your assessment of the system, doesn't it?) Besides, I'm still looking for an answer to my question: How do I know what you say is true? After all, you are no fan of ANY government. So I'm still looking for a marker I can use to guide me. And even if what you say is "truth", it's just another tool when proponents are selective about the reveal. How come you folks aren't ripping on Russia and China, et al?

The Espionage Act, it is no joke. — NOS4A2

Yeah? Ask Khashoggi and all the Putin poison pin cushions if the Espionage Act is a joke.

OK, I'll be more blunt. The answer is it doesn't matter one jot. Your government, their government...what does it matter? You owe your government nothing, you owe no enmity to the other. that's the us vs them to which I was referring. — Isaac

and I'm the one who's comments are apparently suffused with pretensions to expertise! — Isaac

And yet you fail to learn your lessons and you can't teach me anything? I've asked you to teach me, but you can't: proof:

You can't. — Isaac

You've already ruled out 'doing your own research', you've ruled out listening to dissenting voice in any areas other than those in which you are an expert. You've blindfolded and gagged yourself, so do whatever your government says, it's the only option you've got left. — Isaac

No, I'm doing my research now, asking you: How do I tell? But you say I can't tell. So, I either trust you, who can't learn any lessons or teach anything, or I trust my government. I trust my own eyes and what I see happening to my country. Seems like my government is telling me the truth when they say their are subversives and useful idiots out there doing Putin's work for him, and pushing an agenda of white nationalism.

So, since you have nothing, and can't answer my question, that leaves me to use my own suppositions about you, Street, Assange, Murdoch, Trump, Putin, et el.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any body else want to tell me how I can tell the difference between those who want to help democracy with transparency, and those who want to take it down for a Russian agenda?

Perhaps human animals are more needy than animal animals. — TiredThinker

Indeed! :100:

Can we only assume fair or deserving exists objectively if our destiny is determined by a god? — TiredThinker

I don't think we can assume that. I don't think fair or deserving exists objectively, god or no god. I think it's subjective.

If our fortunes far differ that of an apparent equal, perhaps we can only assume things will equalize after life somehow? Or in non-Christian religions a karma judgement that somehow spans between lives? — TiredThinker

In my personal opinion, I think death (maybe after a short transition period) brings us to the perception of what we are now, but do not perceive: Oneness with All. All (god, if you'd rather) is not concerned with subjectivity, except to the extent there are individual living aspects of it (i.e. us). So again, deserves got nothing to do with anything. It's a subjective construct which is subject to different interpretations, depending upon perspective: Predator/Prey. They both see "deserves" differently, unless they are objective about it. In which case, they roll with it.

Yes. Your mistake is treating people's lives as if they're the plot of 'Top Gun'. There's no 'your house'/'my house'. America is made mostly of people (who suffer from the oppression of their government), Australia likewise is populated by human beings who suffer at the hands of a disgraceful government and its corporate sponsors. The rest of the world's people suffer likewise (though often at the hands of the US than their own governments). People. All the same people. Not Russians vs Americans. Not your house vs my house.

Whatever his personal motives, Assange highlighted actions which, if allowed to continue, would harm people. Sending the message that such actions will be severely punished by governments the world over will harm people. There's no us vs. them except in the storyline they want you to swallow. But then your proclivity for swallowing simplistic us vs. them narratives you're fed so that you can play out your John Wayne fantasy has been noted before. — Isaac

First, thank you for being the only person who tried (even if you failed) to take a stab at my question. That said, talk about a simplistic view of the world! First you try to imply a "we are the world" group of people, but then the U.S. government is the bogy man (Top Gun, pun intended, get it? No? Never mind) out there undermining what would otherwise be kumbaya. :roll:

Your silly view of the situation is is just another "us vs them" argument, only you try to wrangle the world into your remuda to defend it against the evil governments.

I assumed my original, honest question was not answered because it is a very hard question. Quite simply, when all I see is unmitigated hatred and sniping against my government (warranted or not),I want to know if the sniper is sincerely trying to help, of if he is an agent for one of those other governments? Look at it from my point of view: We not only have Assange and Street coming out of Australia, but you've also blessed the world with Rupert Murdoch. What I'm seeing here is white nationalism. Especially when you throw Putin into the mix.

So, as a naïve noob in these matters of international concern that you seem to be such an expert on, how is a simpleton like me supposed to know your intentions toward me are good? Are you sewing discord and division in the U.S. as part of a plot to destroy the U.S.? Or are you just a good guy, trying to help us see the error of our ways? You know, some kind of self-improvement guru?

Were the insurrectionist of January 6th on the right track? Was Trump on the right track? Is the fall of the U.S. and the rise of China a good thing? Or are you just trying to help the U.S. by pointing out how fucking corrupt and rotten and evil it is? "Shed a little sun light, disinfect with the truth, and the U.S. too can join the world campfire!"

How is a simple American supposed to know? That's my simple question.

Now you may say that I'm not entitled to an answer, or that the burden is not upon you to exonerate yourself before my non-existent jurisdiction. And that's true. You don't have to answer the question. But as far as my non-existent family in my non-existent house is concerned, if you fail to prove you're not in bed with nationalists, then you are one. Ironic, huh? I mean here you want to view the people of the world as innocent victims of government, yet your failure to prove your bonafides supports government. And all because you can't answer the question: How do I know you are good when all I hear is how fucking rotten and evil my country is? And what happens to credibility when what is happening to Assange is equated with the fate of Khashoggi? Poor stupid me just doesn't know what to do! Evil government misleading me on the one hand, and then there's you. Decisions, decisions.

P.S. You know, as I said before about a world clearing house, that would have moved us closer to what you purport to want. But it didn't happen. Hmmm. I wonder why? I think somebody picked a side. If that's the case, then fuck him.

In that regard the Australian Government is culpable. — Banno

Yeah, let's point our fingers at any easy target. No sense doing the hard work. That's dangerous.

Empathy can't be taught. — Banno

P.S. Empathy would be with the victims of those who don't provide due process to their own.

Empathy can't be taught. I'll read that last post of yours as being about you, and leave you to your own devices. — Banno

1. In anticipation of better from you, I did a quick search and saw the alleged "psychological" torture.
2. I noticed he's not in U.S. custody. So there's that. Here he'd be on easy street and he'd probably be out by now after community service; or found not guilty. :lol:

Nothing so unsubtle. — Banno

Do tell. Maybe you could leak us the truth about his torture. Who told you? Putin?

Torture is indeed effective. — Banno

So now you are arguing he's getting water-boarded or enhanced interrogation at Gitmo? First I've heard of it. I don't think you know what torture is. But maybe you confuse Khashoggi with due process?

No, not a liar. I think you are kidding yourself. — Banno

Being disingenuous is different than kidding oneself. It's not being genuine. You're kidding yourself if you think states are going to sit around and let you dish for one side against them.

Your argument is not against Wikileaks, but in favour of a better Wikileaks. Yep. — Banno

:100: Yep! I never said my argument was against Wikileaks. And indeed, I was in favor of a better one. Didn't I say something about a world clearing house? But that didn't happen, now did it? No disingenuousness there. Just fact.

Given how Assange has been treated by those nations that supposedly defend and foster open discussion, do you think it likely that there will be folk willing to stand up against Russia or China? — Banno

Actually, there were. But they're dead or in a gulag. You'd think if Assange had a little courage like they had, he could use his trial as a showcase in a democracy. But he was a tool and it was never about getting the truth out. It was taking the low hanging fruit and punching an easy target that, at most, might put you in country club. Hell, he probably could have cut a deal by spilling on his handlers. But then he'd be a marked man. Maybe wit pro? Maybe even a sex change operation on the state's nickel, but only if he wanted one.

Do you think prosecuting Assange in this way encourages such reporting? — Banno

Actually, yes. Especially prosecuting him in this way. There are plenty of people out there facing worse, and going back into the flames. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I mean, it's not like we are gutting him, or poisoning him. We are giving him a podium.

Someone should take over this thread. — L'éléphant

You should quit digging.

his tells me you're averse to pondering. — L'éléphant

More nonsense.

Disappointing; disingenuous. — Banno

I can see your misplaced and subjective disappointment. But where is the disingenuousness? Are you calling me a liar?

You would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia". — Banno

Yes, I would. Not only that, but for failure to look for or spill all the shit he had. He's a partisan if he ignores what he was given. I'm sure spooky tunes fed him information on his handlers, but we didn't see that, now did we?

I wonder why titles of court cases read like that? — L'éléphant

So people can tell who the parties are. People name cases like they name cities, people, animals, etc. It's a form of identification.

I will do no such thing. — L'éléphant

I didn't think you would. Remember what I taught you about ego? No? Didn't think so.

I know exactly what I'm doing. — L'éléphant

No, actually, you don't. You've had your ass handed to you, repeatedly, and yet you keep digging. :rofl:

I ask you again, why do court cases have titles like People versus John Doe? Or The United States versus John Doe? Or Alabama versus John Doe? — L'éléphant

Those are the parties to the case, DOH!

What's wrong with pointing out that all parties involved in an abortion deserves mention in morality. — L'éléphant

Your OP telling us that morality was not part of your consideration in the OP. DOH! That's what's wrong with it. No law, then law; no morality, then morality. Culture = Society. You are all over the place. Not all who wander are lost, but you clearly are.

Hell, just look at your responses to others. Forget me. :roll:

Again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. — Banno

Like I said, I don't have a problem with that. I once had a vision of Wikileaks being a world-wide clearing house, unaccountable to any state, dishing all that dirt on all sides, everywhere. But. not so much. Huh? So you'd have to go back a read my spiels, above, to remind yourself of the battle space that some choose to insert themselves into. Big boy rules.

Like a school kid yelling "We hit me back first!" — Banno

"We hit me back first." ? WTF does that mean?

None of this is relevant. A Democracy needs to know what it is doing. Assange did the USA a favour. — Banno

I know he did. I don't have a problem with that. What's relevant is the useful idiots doing Putin's work for him. You know, like Assange and his apologists. If he wants cred then he'd spill on Russia, China, et al. And if his apologists wanted cred they would not compare U.S. due process with Saudi or Russian "due process." You'd have to be a fucking idiot to think there is any kind of comparison.

No one needs to be infiltrated by the Russians. DOH!

1. The Russians have plenty of willing allies and useful idiots doing their work for them;
2. None of these so-called journalists are spilling on the Russians;
3. No one spills on the Russians because the Russians don't offer U.S. due process of law. Like the Saudis, they just fucking kill you;
4. Meanwhile, all the gnats in the cheap seats cheer and laugh while the one they perceive as a bully gets his due. Go, Putin, Go!

It's a spectator sport for those who haven't seen the horror.

Lol — StreetlightX

Laugh at Saudis ripping you apart. Laugh a Putin, poisoning you. Laugh at a colosseum full of lions, ripping you apart. Now I know your colors. Thanks for the reveal.

if you count the years of effective imprisonment without trial — StreetlightX

That's on him. He could have had better due process of law, right away, in the U.S. (and a zealous defender) than most places, like your mentor Putin.

Metaphorically, the United States speaking to the opposition (loyal or otherwise)?

"I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us."
Col. Kurtz, Apocalypse Now.

If you want to play the nationalist, populist game, that is fine. Everything has some merit. But you might want to make sure the king you strike really needs to die; that he isn't just a flawed entity, working on himself; asking for your honest input. Is his progress too slow for your liking? Maybe, but be careful what you wish for. You better have an alternative waiting in the wings; an alternative that can and will do better. Otherwise, I'll shed no tears to see your little arm in a pile. If you are just sniping from the cheap seats, you are a combatant. It's a rough life for a cloistered critic, offering nothing but critique. When you start comparing Khashoggi to Assange, you’re shaping a battle space you may not want to be in. But yeah, gnats. Remember, they’re just gnats. And . . . Putin. Poor little Putin. Just another one of the oppressed.

P.S. Hey Julian, where are the Pee Tapes? LOL!

Yes, indeed. Likewise one would need to actually be eaten before one could really predict the outcome of jumping into the lion enclosure. So hard to tell...it's 50/50 between a powerless journalist being imprisoned for literally anything they can pin on him or the most powerful government in the world conceding to an open and frank discussion of their war crimes...a real tough call...all to play for! — Isaac

I guess he should have done what journalist do these days, and prove his neutrality. LOL! I'm glad he dished on the U.S., but I think he's been sucking Putin's dick. So there's that.

It may be a digression from the thread, but I have questions about how one on the inside of the house should perceive the critiques coming from the outside. Critiques about how the house conducts itself in-house, and how it conducts itself outside, in the rest of the world.

For instance, there are many legitimate critiques about U.S. internal and foreign conduct. I agree with many of those critiques. But when does it go beyond mere critique and enter into the realm of actively inciting division within the house for the purpose of seeing it fall; and not for the benefit of the oppressed internal or external victims? When does it cross over to actual aid and comfort to a less magnanimous actor?

I understand that an outside actor might think that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but you'd think they would have some concern about the friend they are getting in bed with. Especially when that friend has a proven record of being much worse on the issues of concern to them.

If someone with legitimate critiques of my house wants to fashion himself my enemy, do I ignore him? As a gnat to my infinite and impressive power? Or do I deflate his concerns by entertaining them, and trying to address them? How do I distinguish between him and my real enemy, that would seek my downfall?

If those within my house start to divide, and take sides with an external actor who sews division within my house, should I become the oppressor they said I was all along, so they can say to the world "I told you so!"? Or should I fall by being the better angel of my of my nature? Should I let them have what they pray for? Is that a false dilemma?

At this point, I am inclined to perceive the external, non-state actor as a gnat: ignore here, swat there. Maybe even sew a little discord with the external state actor. Give them some of their own medicine, which they perceive themselves as giving me. Let the ultimate measure be the demonstrations of tolerance and magnanimity toward gnats. Is that the burden of the powerful?

P.S. Comparing his situation to getting eaten by lions, well, that's like comparing it to Khashoggi.

Psychologically, he's been given the full discipline and punish treatment. But, sure, they won't be allowed to waterboard him. Probably. — Baden

Yeah, it's a real Novichok situation for him. No due process of law.

If you can't tell the difference between an effort to bring someone to justice and a farcical showtrial to gloss over attempts to silence journalism then you disqualify yourself from reasonable discussion. — Isaac

You'd have to have a farcical showtrial first, before you could tell. Well, unless you have a crystal ball. I mean, it's not like he's been gutted and carved up yet.

I'm curious to see what happens to it. — tim wood

Probably the same thing that is going to happen to Trump. :wink:

:100: :up:

When I read this:

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself. — NOS4A2

And put it into the context of this:

I’m not fond of speaking in such groups and groupthink, but I am capable of it. At any rate, I do not believe such groups have moralities or a collective conscience and are nothing more than loose aggregates of individuals. — NOS4A2

Then I think we might have found a point of agreement. It seems you are saying that society is really just an inanimate tool used by one individual/group or another to enforce their morality on another.

But I'm not sure. Could you clarify your last sentence? Are you saying a loose aggregate of individuals does *not* have moralities or a collective conscience to enforce on others?

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself. — NOS4A2

If the morality of any group of individuals is not the morality of society itself, then how is a group of people enforcing their morality on others putting society against itself? The reason I ask is, it seems like in the first instance you are divorcing society from the individual/group (in the same way, say, that we might divorce a corporation from a blood-pumping human shareholder), but in the second instance, you have reanimated society into something that can be against itself.

If society is not imbued with a collective morality of it's constituents, then it would not be a society, would it? Even if they are agreeing to disagree, they still have a bond of agreement (i.e. not civil war).

The difficulty I'm having is with what I perceive to be as scattered thinking. Your OP says this of morality:

This topic is not about the ontological nature of morality. So Kant's metaphysics of morals, for example, has nothing to do with this. This is not about the objective or subjective nature of moral principles. Any argument or reasoning that cites this notion is irrelevant here. It is also irrelevant whether you use logic, math, symbols, or rational argument in whatever you want to say here. As I will explain below, it is about society, the majority, and the individual (the private individual) components of morality. — L'éléphant

Then it says this of morality:

What holds together a society is the enforcement of morality through the use of force (the law). — L'éléphant

Then you say:

That's immoral. — L'éléphant

I think you tried to create a box in your OP, a box from which no one could escape an inevitable conclusion in accord with your feelings. As one who has failed to properly think through an OP, I learned how quickly the topic can get away from me. People will run off in all kinds of directions, while others will flail about in a struggle to understand what is being asked of them.

My recommendation is this: rearticulate your question from a point of sincere intellectual curiosity. Spend some time with it, in anticipatory argument in your own head, refining and winnowing and re-wording until such time as you find a concise question that will elicit responsive answers (and, to the extent an answer is off-base, everyone else will know to ignore it as "not getting" what you clearly asked). Even then you will find perceptions and angles that you never anticipated. That is a good thing, and a learning opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with trying to create the box, but you must be aware there is no box from which a philosopher cannot escape.

To be able to marry, and to be able to sleep with who they want without risk of criminal prosecution. — Philosophim

Bingo! :100: Those seeking equal rights are not trying to take rights away from others, unless those others think they have a right to deprive others of the rights they enjoy. But such thinking is patently wrong.

As a digression, those who deprive others of equal rights would do well to remember that the longer you keep a man down, the more he's going to push-back when he gets up. Best to apologize and give him a hand up. And the sooner the better.

A society is itself as good as the individuals it's composed of, no? It doesn't seem possible to look at society as distinct from its members, especially when it's mighty convenient to do so? In other words, you can't say that all that's good about America is America (society) and all that's bad about America is Americans (individuals). That doesn't sound fair or even rational. If you claim the beauty of the rose, you must also accept the pain of its thorns.

It makes zero sense, causally. — Agent Smith

This is true, especially for those on the outside looking in. But it's true even from the inside. Your analysis can also apply to cultures. If a society is made up of many different cultures (which creates it's own culture of diversity), it can be said that bad culture can taint the house. Trying to get them to all get along can create issues on the inside and the outside. Sometimes those on the outside benefit from a house in discord.

The fact that the state had to put a condition for a legal abortion means it is still restrictive. — L'éléphant

A legal abortion is not a crime against society. You should also distinguish a "crime" from a "crime against society." The former is, quite simply, a crime. Whereas the latter can be interpreted as a "crime" or more generally as "an affront to society." Based upon all the limits you put in your OP it is reasonable to believe you meant the latter. (Or, more particularly, an affront to or a crime against a cultural norm.)

I don't gain anything by pretending to be right. That's bullshit. — L'éléphant

Sure you do. It a narcissist/ego thing. Otherwise you just admit you were wrong.

News to me. — L'éléphant

I know. That's why I'm trying to teach you.

You are conflating society with culture. Culture is language, tradition, religion, shared experience, etc. Society is glued together by laws.
— James Riley
No I'm not. Unless you mean humans are automatons glued together by laws. Apply culture to these automatons and you get society. — L'éléphant

Actually, yes, you are. And no, I don't mean humans are automatons glued together by laws. You don't apply culture to your straw man automatons to get society. Culture is independent of society. You need to study your civics, sociology, poly sci, etc.

I know how hard it is for you to be wrong, but you should be used to it by now. Your OP was an abomination (and no, I'm not talking about your caveats and exceptions; I'm talking about the internal inconsistencies between written (regulation) and unwritten (culture)) but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and teach you. But you refuse the education and go for the Jello-on-the-wall routine. Sad, really. When you find yourself in a hole, you should really quit digging.

Well we aren't Gods. We barely have the capacity to consider human predicaments let alone all life. — TiredThinker

While I bring up animals as a worthy comparison, my real goal in doing so is to have us reflect on any difference, and if there is none, then why us? In other words, humans are animals. Some folks like to think we are "better", "moral" "more worthy of deserves" etc. But, from an objective view, which is what I was getting at, we aren't more or less deserving of anything else. Good things happen to those who do and those who don't "deserve" them. Same with bad things. Thus rendering, in my mind, the concept of "deserves" to be of no moment. It means nothing, except maybe to me.

An analogy: Law only matters if it is enforced. Forget if it is enforced blindly, or justly. It must first be enforced to even matter. For there to be "deserves" then "deserves" must matter. But apparently "deserves" does not matter. At least not objectively. Deserves only matters subjectively, and there is no collective agreement on what is deserved; especially when taken out of the context of an entire life.

I consider the deserving of the suffering of one and the lack of suffering of the other. — TiredThinker

You might indeed do that. Good luck for one, bad luck for the other, deserves, or not. But in either case we tend to consider in isolation, based upon limited, subjective knowledge. Most people see that person jumping/falling from the World Trade Centers and we think: "Innocent! They didn't deserve that!" But what of the woman that was beaten and raped by that man that morning? Karma? The child molested? Did Osama give that guy what he deserved?

How about the heir to a fortune? An heir who did exactly shit to "deserve" the fortune, compared to the guy who worked his ass off all his life, for nothing?

Deserves is too fickle to matter. It's like a Christian god. His worth is as ephemeral and foundational as is the concept of "deserves." Go get me a real god, or a real concept upon which to hang my hat.

Damnation on conservative religious doctrine!!! — Bitter Crank

All I know is, they are lucky Jesus is the Prince of Peace or he'd come down here and slap the beejeezus out of them!

It matters to me. — unenlightened

I know it does. That's the subjectivity. :wink: