The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: words

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I've (see in situ)


I was mostly interested in your meaning. To me, the word "sacred" suggests something which cannot be harmed or "touched" in the sense of violated. In my way of thinking "defending against initiated harm" can mean that the individual initiating that harm may need to be harmed. That individual may need to be killed. If an individual initiates harm, then in my way of thinking, that individual may still certainly be considered unique and irreplaceable, but not sacred.

I think, at the point of initiating harm, a person loses any claim to being sacred and any expectation of being left alone.

It's an interesting subject you've brought up, and I'm sure you don't want to hear all my thoughts on it. Using the depth of this textbox as a guide, I'll simply say that I think humans are distinct from animals, intrinsically. On the other hand, most embrace the role of forced servitude and are treated as beasts of burden. Others embrace the role of predator. In my mind, such individuals are not sacred. My space is up.