| From: | Marathon@*******.DEMON.CO.UK |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Info wanted... |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:13:29 +0000 |
As
for when in time... Well, some of us on the streets have morals, there
are things we simply will not do. Killing women and children, killing
innocents, killing in general for the sake of it, and other such things.
Moralistic attitudes do not reflect only the upholding of the law, the
law is only one of a series of attitudes that gathers under the title of
moralistic. I have certain morals, but I am not averse to bending or
breaking a few laws in the pursuit of living.
OK, not everybody holds to those ideals, and I don't expect everyone to
do so, that would be follish in the extreme. But it seems to me that
this area is becoming less and less frequented by people of a like mind,
and more by people of a particular mindset, that of racist. Now
everybody is entitled to their opinion, and it is their fundamental
right to voice that opinion under the strictures of the constitution,
just as much as it is my right to voice my opinion of said ideals and
attitudes. if people don't want to listen to me, that's fine, just so
long as they don['t try to shut me up for the preference of some
biggoted nitwit.
If others have a right to voice an opinion, then I have a right to
comment on that opinion. Or is this board like the streets, equal for
some and less equal for others? Don't slag the other guy, because he's
more important/wealthier/bigger/etc. than I am? Bulldrek. It's a free
country, or at least as free as it can be. As far as I am aware free
speech has not yet been outlawed here in Shadowland, just within earshot
of a corp exec/ceo. Speaking of which the increasing presence of
corporate personnel here is also of concern to me, it means that one of
the points of communication for "street people" like myself is becoming
increasingly compromised. This is a form of employment service, but the
kind of monitoring and presence that occurs here, is worrying in the
extreme.
But I digress. The decision to support or oppose Euthanasia is not
something that I feel is at issue here. Genocide however, is. The
total persecution and destruction of a race of people "because they're
different, or strengthened opposition to that race because they exist
and occupy the same city, is wrong. Pure and simple, there is no
argument or excuse for racism. If people can't understand the fact that
I oppose that kind of attitude with every fibre of my being, that's
their problem. Physically threatening someone with "violence" implied
or actual, is also ridiculous in the extreme. If I was to threaten you
with death or physical harm because you disagree with me, I have everry
belief that you will laugh at me, and call me fool, and deservedly so.
To physically threaten somebody in an area that is essentially public,
with a very public post, deserves ridicule and shows a considerably
amateurish front to people who read here. Anything publicly posted that
equates to a threat, is likely to receive the attention of the Law
enforcement agencies who know doubt monitor conversations here, for
instance Serenity, SIGA, and several other "security" corporations that
I have noticed posting here. The person making the threat will be
logged, if, and it's a big if, the hit occurs, guess who they're going
to be looking for. Dropping idle threats left right and centre is not
only a sign of a strange mentality, but also a childish attitude. "if
you don't agree with me I'm gonna punch you.." Duh! That reminds me so
strongly of the playground attitude of "This is my sandbox, you can't
play here." I may be guilty of that attitude, in as much as I react
strongly to posts of racism or "attitude", but I don't demand that those
people are stopped, or threaten them with violence. I merely comment,
which is my right under the constitution, and as a sentient being.
I must confess, I find it fascinating that you've taken such a strong
opinion to my post, I was not preaching morals, I was not quoting
religious strictures and demanding that people live by them, and I was
not lecturing anyone on being moralistic. I did, however make a remark
about the amount of nutcases that were posting here. Yes I lumped
Abraham into that particular branch of society, as I felt that his
implied attitude
>>>>>[Midnight. Interesting commentary. Yes, most moralistic attitudes
are gained from the society we live in, those societies were originally
created on the basis of one religion or another. I do not follow a
religion as they contain too much hypocrisy for my liking, but that is
merely my opinion. However, if you speak to the majority of people, you
will find that although they are probably aware of the ten commandments,
and these commandments, in one form or another exist in every society
and religion, they do not necessarily live by them. Atheism is the
disbelief of God. I think it was originally coined for people who did
not believe in the Christian god, and has since been used to describe
people who do not believe in an omnipotent entity who governs our lives.
You are not required by any law in the world to follow a religion or
it's laws. In England as well as America and some of Europe, provided
you can prove beyond doubt that you do not follow nor believe in any of
the political strictures of that country, you do not have to abide by
that country's laws. Claiming atheism does not entitle anyone to
disobey laws, it merely states that you don't believe in "a" God.
However, furthering that reasoning, it is safe to say that our laws are
based on the teachings of the Christian church. No killing, stealing,
etc etc... All of which have laws in this and other countries.
Disbelieving in religion, does not entitle a person to disbelieve in
law. However, I'm not really one to preach on the subject, having
broken my fair share as well.
Surprisingly enough there are moralistic people in the shadows, maybe
not in those you frequent, but these people exist, and fight for what
they believe, whether it be against the corruption of the political
areas of the city, or against the amoral corporate attitudes, or against
those who would commit genocide against one race or another, those
people are here. Somone I once met, stated that there are no more
heroes. The age of the crusader is dead, I disagree. Although darker,
and closer to the edge, The age of the Crusader is still very much
alive. It is merely harder to tell who they are.
I am puzzled about one of your statements...
quote
... Most of us don't work the shadows because it is polite.
/quote
Pardon? Excuse my obvious ignorance, but I do not understand the
implications behind this statement. What on earth do you mean, polite?
Your apology to Valentine though obviously heartfelt, may I feel be
slightly misguided, not everyone in the shadows accepts blood money, not
everyone in the shadows indulges regularly in wet-work, some will not
work that frame at all. Others will investigate a run before accepting
it, and others plan their jobs with utmost detail, so that the least
trouble and death is caused. if you truly have seen so much death that
you are numb to it, then you inhabit a different set of shadows to me.
Yes death exists in the shadows, violent and unforgiven death, but it
also inhabits the light of the city as well. A drunk running a
pedestrian down, is as much a murder as a Runner pulling a triger on a
security guard, a drug dealer shooting a police officer is as brutal as
a runner killing an opponent. Because deaths occur in the shadows does
not necessarily deny the shadows any morals. The same, similar and
worse deaths occur on the streets every day, and some are far worse than
what occur in the deep parts of Seattles nights. The murder of
defenceless children in a school room, but a drugged up psycho is far
worse than many things I am aware of that the runners of my acquaintance
have committed. The murder of families in a fast food restaurant is far
worse than the battle for survival that occurs in the Shadows.
Yes, every time a runner takes the life of a security guard or police
officer, he/she is killing somebodies son, maybe destroying the life of
a family, leaving a wife and children fatherless and without secure
income, but that is a part of the life of that officeIn much the same
way that a runner faces death whenever he/she takes a contract. Morals,
yes thay can influence the outcome of these situations. The police
officer may be there because he/she believes strongly in the laws of the
land, and wishes to uphold them to the utmost of his/her ability, and
the runner may be totally amoral, society is governed by these
attitudes, and they exist in all walks of life. To deny they exist in
the shadows, is to condemn all of us as amoral atheists whose only
believ in life is the almighty dollar/nuyen/whatever. That opinion is
arrogant in the extreme.
There are very distinct lines drawn on morality. For those who do not
believe in the religious teachings, there are the laws of the land, and
the teachings of their mentors which outline the morals of their own
beliefs, everyone believes in something, even if it is only death. I
have yet to meet a true atheist, or someone who is truly amoral.
Randomly killing all who are met, or stealing from all around, is not a
sign of an amoral person. Complete denial of all laws, and the
indulgence of that attitude is a better definition of amoral, but even a
fear of capture/consequence by the upholders of the laws that are being
disbelieved is an indication of morals, the person is fearful of the
very laws thay pretend to deny. I do not personally believe that a
truly amoral person exists.
Your labelling of Shadowrunners as Morally Challenged, is incorrect.
Many runners have their own code of behaviour and strictures within the
shadows, these are, though unwritten, laws in themselves, and indicate a
code that should be followed, that in itself is moralistic, though by a
different definition to the religious undertones of citizen laws. I
have no true definition of morally challenged, except maybe in the cases
of people like Goldsmith, and those that support and believe in him and
his attitudes. The title "morally challenged" was taken from the title
awarded to a psychiatric institution by a politician, if you wish to
label me by the mark of another person, that is your privilege, but
quite obviously wrong. At no point in my post did I state that all
people were or were not morally challenged, if you and Death wish to
interpret my post by one statement, then I pity you, as you obviously
missed the implications behind the remark and focussed simply on one
statement, a statement that was taken from a name, a name awarded by
someone else.
Maybe before labelling me or anyone else as moralistic, or morally
challenged, you would do better to research your concepts before you
accuse people of one or the other. Morals are not simple lines drawn in
the sand, they are a series of beliefs, personal laws and strictures,
sometimes indefineable, sometimes obvious. Everybody has them,
everybody follows them. To one extent or another, everybody has morals,
whether they are prepared to admit it or not. Even Abraham has beliefs
that follow some set of laws that he has adopted, yet his beliefs
require the destruction or perscution of another race, a race that are a
part of his own race, the only difference is in appearance. That is a
fine definition, and if these people are to persecute another race, by
their own definition they must also persecute their own. We are all
part of the same people, the same species, the only difference is in
skin colour, the shape of our ears, or the size and build of our body.
Although this conversation has shot off way into the twilight zone, at
least I've managed to reiterate my original intent.]<<<<<
-- Marathon <22:12:43/03-28-58>
