Pimples After Brazilian

of who I am - and that it follows?



I want from an account appeared in a recent comment of a (of our?) Readers' critical - and appreciated.

"One thing I have to say about" your absolute right to property "on life. If there's one thing not true is this, you are born without meaning to, not when you die is up to you and even if do not want you, you can all happen without your slightest wish, indeed. How do you say that you have the absolute property of that thing? "

This argument, I summarize for those who do not have time and want to go and reread the context, and 'was raised against a very brief mention made by Beiderbecke's right to property' absolute that has on their lives, law and 'led to justification of' euthanasia. With the argument summarized in those lines you should just wipe out the conceptual basis of condoning euthanasia.

I'm not going to talk about euthanasia in if 'and if' sensitive issue, inevitable and bitter. But I want to show, in a few clear lines if possible, that argument and 'dangerous from the theoretical point of view for a Catholic as our reader (and what the most 'critics believe euthanasia).

That 's it. We are born without asking and die against our will '(even though the first case and' more 'of the second clear: right or wrong from the moral point of view, there are people dying, in fact, their will'). This darkness' of our origin and our destination, which affects everyone, and 'a point that many philosophers have described in depth, better than we here can not do, and which, moreover, also a mind accustomed to the philosophy can not' very easy to grasp. The idea of \u200b\u200b"non-property 'of ourselves" fits, Curiously, both with a philosophy of 'absurd atheist and denies the immortality' of 'soul (' cause to live and make sense of things, if we are all waiting for one endless night?) as with Christianity (watch out, because 'I do not know' the day it 's time - the Lord will come' like a thief in the night - all is' in the hands of God, the hair of our head are numbered, and we Even if we struggle we can not extend one minute of our life [I have not quoted verbatim, and random, but cf. Mk 13, 37, I Thess. 5.4; Mt 10, 30]).

But if we start from the observation that and nothing 'in our property (or, again, because it' s in the hands of chance, or because it 's in the hands of God whose ways are infinite and inscrutable judgments), then it must follow, dear reader (and dear all they have been tempted by a similar argument), not so much a refutation of euthanasia (or 'abortion) as a demonstration of the absurdity ' action in its entirety. If everything 'absurd, or if everything and' Lord God, we might as well stop and not do more than 'nothing. But the 'action' essential. From a biological point of view and 'inevitable: If an animal stopped to ponder the senselessness of living (but reality 's just the man has this privilege) , a predator would eat him (a man, protected with' e ', generally, four walls, at least he would die of starvation). If a Christian lies in fatalism, then, or embraces a doctrine of predestination (possible option supported within Protestant - but also not 'then hangs doing nothing) or, indeed, contradicts its work for obtain favor in the eyes of God as a dogma, and as a practice.

fact, there is a fatalism perfect. There is not and can not 'exist. We act, we do, we move (at least in a part of our lives) as if that latent insanity was not there. I'm not saying this is the main feature of 'humanity' in full every time and place but at least civilization 'West: the ability', although they may think (feel?) The nothing, giving ourselves to 'be . To give rise to a space of reasons, concepts (and I apologize for this and some ears' too abstruse or philosophical).

Time: between these concepts are those of individual life and property '. It must be said that they go together and that means 'that each has the property' of their lives (and set, to establish laws, accordingly). If you say that the individual is not 'master of his own life, you have to justify this assertion, or falling into fatalism dell'insensatezza total (not unreasonable position, mind you, and 'mine too, I confess, at the worst-but then, gentlemen, no more' sense that not even read this ) or saying that everything and 'master But if God and God' master of everything really-all: and 'party' can not be, 'cause then it would be too limited and not' Christian then you must slide inaction to not offend with our interference. Inaction, on the one hand, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation through their own behavior and that, by 'other, in any case are not reflected even in the conduct of men of the present church, to do a trivial example, but good 'cause sadly the memory of all this, John Paul II' was kept alive (despite the threatened decay of all 'natural') from the machines. He was usurping the right to dispose of her body, of that life?

not think, at first, to apply to the discussion of euthanasia therapy, but has the same shape. Some might say (some say): the case of therapy and 'opposite, since they cooperate to life and as' doing it cooperates with God that life supports. No - I do not object in principle, but the question is not so theoretically row 'smooth as desired: A Apart from the fact that "cooperate with God 'is a trial that conceals itself' a great presumption, and that leads to limit the power of God (it co-operates only with something or someone whose action is' incomplete, in fact, and whose plans are clear), but here it is sliding back door to the concept of life as opposed to the death "and that of the whole life - as a project of a single existence, and in the draft and that 'in the hands of God (if 'in the hands of God) there is a limit to the first well that is not' in our right to extend even groped. (It turns out 'that in the consistent destruction of fatalism and physicians' lurking ...) If you wish to support the evangelical base extension in tutto e per tutto delle cure atte a continuare la vita come assenza di morte, come se questo tema fosse inequivocabilmente affrontato, come se un giudizio al proposito fosse univocamente deducibile dale parole del Signore, auguri - stiracchiate pure le parole di Gesu', il quale ha lui stesso oscillato, davanti alla prospettiva della morte e della sofferenza, tra il desiderio dell' allontanamento dell'amaro calice e l'abbandono alla Volonta' del Padre [cf. Mt 26,41].

Si potrebbe ancora dire: d' accordo, e' teoreticamente fondato parlare di proprieta' della vita: ma chi dice che poi di questa debba disporre l' individuo e non qualcun' altro? Su questo punto sono ben sicuro. Se proprieta' e' un predicato lecitamente applicabile alla vita individuale, nessun altro se non l'individuo stesso deve essere colui che e' concepito come in grado di disporne. Se cosi' non fosse (ovvero: se si dicesse che qualcun altro –qualche altro essere umano, in questo caso) ne dispone, le conseguenze sarebbero ripugnanti, e non e' necessaria la filosofia a capire quanto.

Se non sono d'altri, io sono mio, dunque. E ricevo questa proprieta' con timore e tremore.

Valete.

Real Bikini Wax Removal

Semplicemente uno dei più bei monologhi che il cinema ci abbia mai regalato, capace di interpretare alla perfezione l'umore che certe mattine o certe notizie sono capaci di infondere :-)

Pontoon With Camping Enclosure For Sale

genius of secularism, totalitarianism and human progress



Ci ho pensato molto di frequente, e gli ultimi attentati (per fortuna sventati) di Londra e Glasgow mi mi ci hanno fatto tornare sopra. Alla laicità, intendo. Ho sempre ritenuto fermamente che ad essa dobbiamo la nostra ricchezza, il nostro progresso, la nostra civiltà, che insomma il nostro (intendendo noi come occidente) benessere sia ad essa intimamente connesso e proporzionale.
Essa, all’inizio di quella che comunemente si chiama “età moderna”, ha coinciso con una concezione di uomo libero, non più inquadrato saldamente in caste statiche, ereditarie, immutabili. Si è svilita la forma e si è iniziato a considerare la sostanza: l’uomo non è caratterizzato in base a chi è ma in base a cosa fa. Perciò ogni uomo deve essere libero almeno aprioristicamente di vivere la propria vita, decidere cosa farne. C’è un punto della costituzione americana (che a dispetto di formule rituali che contiene va indicata come un cardine della modernità laica) che mi ha sempre entusiasmato per la sua acutezza: la libertà basilare di ogni uomo di ricercare la felicità. Il concetto di ricerca della felicità (“the pursuit of happiness”) racchiude già in sé the modern world. Because the research behind that happiness is not a given a priori or acquired nor denied: not born in a condition (state, religion and assorted leviathans) that we take to the grave, but it has the right to change this condition, without which there is no insurmountable obstacle imposed from above. All that has plagued the first man morally and physically, from the classes of the ancien regime to the dictates of moral and hierarchies of the church, they begin to seem unnecessary constraints, of which - and here lies the difference between liberal and Jacobin - not asked death or destruction, but only the freedom of emanciparvisi. I conceive
secularism in this sense: freedom to call out without doing harm to others, imposed by morality, by the dominant religious and ethical constraints. Then elect the individual as such and their rights to basic unit of society, not the faithful, not the employee, not a grain in a shapeless mass, but the individual in and of itself. In this perspective, castes, classes and other superstructures created on purpose to deny freedom of the individual instruments are obsolete scrap. The history with its actions and courses clearly teaches us that progress and welfare are higher in free societies, which give dignity and individual rights, whereas in fact the company totalitarian (whether based on religion and politics does not matter) create pockets of injustice, oppression, slavery and morality are on time for the collapse. Daughters examples that can be invoked in this regard are many: first of the backwardness of the confessional states, which was once the papal state, which are now the majority of Islamic countries: all places where progress is frowned upon and condemned as a heretic , where hunger, illiteracy and caste privileges are widespread.
Another good example is given by religions "political", ie those totalitarian ideas that purport to cancel the individual in an indistinct mass, regardless of its proclaimed fake secularism. The best example here is the Communist ideology that negates the individual, the caste of the ancien regime that replaces the class struggle between them, subject to unit with uniform rights which are inevitably part. There is no room for dissent just because there is no room for individuality, everything is marked by a monolithic coordinated action. In light of these considerations communism could be regarded as a religion rightly, as a result of predetermined utility promises an equally pre-determined way of life. It is here that the stronger you feel the rift between liberalism (which always requires the secularism) and the totalitarian ideologies with claims: ineffective, earthly or otherworldly, is due to the liberal ideology of man as such, but it only has the right to procacciarsela. Echoing the speech is entitled to pursue happiness, not happiness itself.
And as man has always looked for happiness? By labor, industry to earn profits to increase their standard of living. This is just a hint to show that both the ultradestrorsi to claims, because it is maximized the welfare of a society, individual freedoms and economic freedoms go hand in hand.
greetings

Repair History Of Rca Vcr Players

"free" old aunts and Antiecologismo

Much could be said, much in the newspaper Libero , which in years and years of fire and pyrotechnic numbers has come to be known for more '.

Free within the category of newspapers such as El Manifesto ' Unita' , which indeed it is the consideration puo'dire right (or center-right, if you press these labels) . Newspapers, with which an audience of readers buy the ideas, or slogans, which then submits during the week, opposition papers, the piu'che information, giving his best 'when your favorite political force' in opposition and then, if that by chance (puo'capitare!) ascends to the Roman high-backed chairs, recruiting, mainly because of its thrust controversy, battles both with the opposition as with the majority, pretending to give her the branch. Newspapers in which you can 'you', from time to time, some recognize the correct position (in stercore aurum), but the simple fact that, in criticizing and always, sooner or later it hits the mark, in a country with one thousand distortions.

Free stands for its titles ranging from the sarcastic and vulgar, always accompanied by special piu'spesso vignettes (for truth 'is not very expressive, but it' a purely personal opinion). The volgarita'e'un integral part of the controversy, it is, in fact, to please the mentality '"Old Aunt" (1), which teaches good manners and extend a slap to his nephew if they spoke with his mouth full or let out a 'shit', but then saw the cartoons as an umbrella Berlusconi, who makes the gesture (the result of premature enthusiasm for opening the Senate last year) or by reading the little word 'Paraculo' recently referring to that tristanzuolo Veltroni's ride of that smug sciuri Felt 'that sends the mica to say'. The mentalita'di who sees in a non-constant threat, perhaps the root of all evil Italians, but then gloats skirt bought five euro 'by the Chinese'. The mentalita'di who would close all borders, but then if it is to assist the sick grandmother and 'very happy to call the Ukrainian underpaid caregivers. A mentality ', in short, cross-eyed, hypocritical (ne'di right ne'di left, but essentially Italiot).

Let us return to our newspaper. What should rather be called Capriccio , characterized com'e'dai piu'bizzarri whims - and realta'sempre attributable to well-defined political influence. The piu'triste that was tied to the story of Cogne, which saw the first newspaper (with the usual emphasis) and then hyper-guilty innocent, not just the defense of Ms. Franzoni was taken by his friend-of- Free Taormina, honest man hungry for fame 'and fresh flush of a charge the government (whose expulsion casus belli was the' tone 'of some of his utterances on the Justice System and that was the result of much of the controversy' As of then opposition antipathies and rivalries' internal to the then majority).

To please the mentality of 'Old Aunt above what do you do? There are many strategies. A e'quella to identify a theme and treat it 'unusual', that 'by contrarian, giving cosi'l'impressione realta'compiacendo but to go against the player's mental inertia. The rhetoric of shoot does the rest. Hence the example of the last days: in a world where the most 'beautiful ideals are unfortunately represented by idiots emeritus, understood that such sensitivity' ecology is taken 'to heart' by politicians (or other influential figures) - think the issue of global warming, Al Gore took on his shoulders and recently revived in the Italic, sciapo in his soup, the pro-environmentalist (but pro-everything, really ') Veltroni. Since 'this issue e'difeso to the specific words, with all their faults, not' infrequent that they are not caught red-handed scratching well as preach. Or, as the thesis in question is connected to a campaign, it highlights the utilitarian use (as well as a newspaper, in reality ', not' published in virtu'del just love the ideas that spread).

So what do you do that devil of a Free ? You remove the 'bales of ecologisti´: cioe´, dato che le persone che predicano la difesa dell´ ambiente (oppure, se il termine vi sembra troppo ambizioso e altisonante, ´comportamenti ambientalmente piu´corretti´) sono poco credibili e spesso, ahinoi, di sinistra, bando all´ecologismo e alla ´sudditanza mentale´ in cui ci ha indotto (ma quando? viene da chiedersi). Poiche´ tanto a Napoli la spazzatura non si divide, non dividiamola nemmeno noi! (E´ in fondo il ragionamento del leghista che non paga il canone rai per protesta contro il fatto che c´e´chi non lo paga al Sud). Poiche´ ci sono studi che potrebbero dimostrare che gli scarichi delle auto non sono poi cosi´dannosi, nel dubbio, sgasiamo piu´che possiamo con le nostre macchine, usiamole anche per andarci dalla camera al cesso, sara´un atto politico alla faccia dei sinistrorsi oltreche´una gran comodita´! Come diceva una freddura del grande Bramieri, mangiamo cacca, miliardi di mosche non possono sbagliarsi...

Ma si´, non costa niente a Feltri promuovere queste campagne, che confermano il lettore, essenzialmente, nella sua pigrizia, dando una motivazione politica a qualcosa che gia´ fa (sprecare e inquinare) e che ora assurge a gesto politico. Come i ragazzi che vanno a un concerto saltando la scuola ma che lo fanno ancor piu´ volentieri quando e´ ´per la pace´: diversi i soggetti, diverse le idee, ma il meccanismo psychological and 'the same. Returning to the theme of the environment: Felt (or his) does not say, but do not give a damn, for age reasons, if the ice melts and the radiation increases the exhaust e'cancerogeno (for charity ', not that he is the cause prince, mind you), 'cause the world so he does not have to stay there piu'quanto us, in fact, even this mechanism that I described and' one of the results of gerontocracy that, as a phenomenon piu'generale, and 'one of the true ills of Italy. And for the moment, who cares about the short term because 'in the medium sara'piu not on this Earth, just to sell copies of old aunts and impress with its case "against" and the words "clear".

Valete.

(1) Please do not comment polemically piu'giovanissime but mentally not to mention aunts and dynamics that divide conscientiously waste e'solo illustrative picture I had in mind one of those characters to Newspaper Gian Gale . This is NOT e'affatto an article against the sisters of the mother or grandmother.