We all have that 5 minutes of peace a day. Those five minutes where the spouse isn't on your case, the baby isn't screaming, the boss isn't breathing down your neck, the idiots under you aren't breaking anything, etc... Its during those times when we sometimes have our most lucid moments, its also the times when we have our most hair brained ideas. My thought today was, What happens when the belief that "All things are acceptable in moderation" is taken to the extreme? If the belief isn't taken in moderation is it still valid? hmmm? narfi ps. my wife is great, I was just using an example :P
i liked the opening of your post very nice :) Technically that statement however I don't think is true. Since it says ALL things. So to me murder for example is unacceptable and will never be acceptable even in moderation. However, I would agree with the spirit of the statement that taking things in moderation is generally the best policy. If something is not taken in moderation then either it is too much or too little and hence may be problematic. For example say sex. Taken in moderation it's good and healthy however too much and too little may lead to problems :D
It could easily be argued that there are times when it is appropriate and necessary to take human life. Wouldn't one of those situations be considered a moderate version of murder? narfi
Interesting. Yes. There are situations that exist on this earth where I can see the justification of Murder as being acceptable. Does this make it a "moderate" action as it has been precipitated by a "severe" action? Very interesting question narfi on the moderation point. Can I "moderately" agree with an ethos without de-meaning it?
To take the phrase to an extreme is an interesting irony in itself, since the point of the phrase is to encourage us NOT to do this sort of thing! To prove that the phrase is incorrect we need to think of an example of something that ISN'T good even in moderation (murder was suggested and refuted, but what about say antisemitism?). Ironically, by seeking an example that proves the phrase wrong, we are going to an extreme, thus proving the phrase correct! BRILLIANT!
Smoking, I have been told many times by herself that even in moderation it is not good for me. But she has yet to show me proof l-) Can I request a thread title change from mods as the vision disturbs me :D
After 5 more minutes of peace, I wonder.. A long time ago in a far away land I went to college, while there I took an introduction to genetics class. I remember the teacher said we each have 5 fatal flaws in our dna (I am assuming on average) but because we each carry a duplicate set we are usually fine. Each generation this gets a little bit worse. The genetic code is slowly degenerating from generation to generation. This is why there are so many hereditary health problems. (not the ones that can be fixed with diet or clean living/atmosphere etc...) This is why inbreeding is so dangerous, you need to have that secondary set of "code" from outside your immediate family line to compare with to make the best healthiest body possible, picking the best or most dominant codes from each set. Now its been along time, and I am defiantly no expert on this subject, but IF the above are in fact facts; Could a mathematician and a geneticist (I realize they are/can be quite similar) get together and determine the year or generational number in which the human race will cease to exist purely from lack of a clean set of blueprints?
After 5 more minutes of peace, I wonder.. If it can be determined by how much exactly - or approximately to make a "good guess" - sure, they could. someone probably already did and noone cared ^^ I really doubt humanity will cease to exist due to some "natural" dna deterioration. catastrophies? yes. self-destruction? sure. maybe increased dna deterioration because of all the crap people eat nowadays... like... purple xD
