In passing… the place
memories are found,
we find either the 
kindest of thoughts
or things seared in to
our mind, and our mind
feels no pleasure or
pain of either one.


Odd that it is only to be found, as a memory or a current condition, where the body is what feels the pleasant sensations or pangs of pain and the mind, feeling nothing at all, tells us if it is enjoyable or not. If no thought to free will is implied and we cannot be held morally responsible to our actions then we serve each other up to the fantasies of others and turn each other into nothing more than intellectual property to be used… even to offer up our flesh to ‘whatever feels good… we’ll do it (no belief to prevent it for there is no moral imperative when there is no belief).’ An atheist’s dream.

By internalizing (thinking alone) human actions have no free will exhibited by external causes, it affords one the justification to then excuses one’s behavior (self determined) as having been externally caused and grants the ability to feel good from the choices (an exercise in free will) freely made and, therefore, guilt free.

You can also find this through this link below, and there you will find comments.

ATTN: the link above, to Red Bubble, is defunct… my account has been canceled. I was attacked by means of a “Hate crime,” and I’m going to seek legal outcome, possibly an injunction to impede all U.S. activity. I’m waiting on a friend with some clout to get back to me… and I’ll keep you posted.

“fallacy of logic by emotional objectivity removed”©

When the solution to a problem

can be solved by a reaction, and

it matters not if the reaction is

based on truth or not… aided by:

guidelines (soft rules of conduct),

perceptions of and from one’s own

set of values or an appearance of

something having been done wrong-

this is the time to pray for sanity,

for under these conditions all one

has to do is establish a claim of

impropriety… and based on the claim,

alone, is when the secondary reaction

will be, inevitably, always wrong.

When we allow, as a standard, a condition or situation to be used to divine meaning to our actions… is when relativism will take hold of the societal norm; which can and will surely suffocate any individual of their own perceptions held dear or not. It will be only understood as a conditionality rendering subjectivity negligent to personal positional opinion- and is then dependent on one view to determine the fate of another. The opinion of the one that suffers from a decision based on faulty information will be subject to the decision rendered, persecution to be a removal of one’s own determination by the determination of another. In order for relativism to be effective and functional there must be a general regard toward all equally or it will fail. the weight of the fulcrum used here is the ‘self’ and when ‘any self’ exercises judgement (right or wrong) objectivity is lost in a subjective state. This belief is nothing more than a hypothetical plausibility gone wrong (when attempting to apply it in or on a society) for without an absolute quality of wrong (the terms and conditions that will apply equally to all) it becomes a wheel that spins on its own axis… and the axis has no constant other than the individual perception relied on. It becomes a free for all… and with no regard for anything as a standard; which in turn proves my point, to then subject someone to a definable punishment (when based on a causality other than the one complaining and against the one complained on) shows favoritism at best… or a pointed intolerance (HATE) and it is against the law, International or local, to exercise and participate (be a PARTY TO ACTIONS FROM OR RELATED TO) in ’a HATE crime.’

The use of “Problem, reaction, solution” came from out of Hegelian Dialectics, a plan or methodology used well by dictators and despots throughout human history but it took Hegel to secure it by definition. See its ugliness in it many forms here (*). This philosophy also speaks of turning any society into that which it does not like, used in Germany on the Germans themselves, and we all know the historic example left us from the past. The flaw of goodness or the perception of being “NICE” goes right out the window and is nothing but lip service… especially to the one it is directed at when the basis of the perception used was askew to begin with. Ask any Jewish person about Hitler, what about relativism here… and you see what can be done to one used to the extreme. This is absolutely WRONG.

Moral relativism is an oxymoron… for it is neither moral nor representative of all the same, and would be found relative (in application) to the one that believes it to be true.