Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Emotions and choice Message-ID: <1417@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 14:30:17 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1417 Posted: Sat Aug 3 14:30:17 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:12:58 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 28 > Woah, just hold the fort right there. Lets take a moment to take some > of our own medicine. You tell me right now HOW being unaware of the > possibilities of a choice prohibits choice. I know exactly what > you're saying above. Its the same argument to which the response is, > "ignorance of the law is no excuse." [PEASE] That's funny, quoting a pithy maxim that supports the notion of self- responsibility to "prove" your point. Sorry, that's just a tautological argument. I happen not to agree with the notion that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". If a child raised by wolves in the woods leaps out and kills someone, does he get the death penalty? You'll have to prove "ignorance of the law is no excuse" before you can use it as part of your argument. >>(I do agree completely about the possibilities of other choices, but, contrary >>to the turn this discussion has been taking, one cannot be considered >>responsible for things like emotions until one is aware of the possibilities >>of controlling them.) > Again, even if you weren't aware of the possibilities, who else could > possibly be responsible but you? Who says ANYBODY has to be "responsible"? I thought you had agreed that it wasn't necessary a binary "others aren't responsible for me therefore I must be". -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr