You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.
If you describe yourself as "sometimes this and sometimes that" or "wishy-washy" or "undetermined" or "a moral contortionist", I would normally equate any of those terms with "unprincipled". I'm just asking if you would personally agree to that specific terminology or if you prefer something slightly more precise, like perhaps "non-principled".
Or perhaps you consider your lack of identifiable principles to be its own (meritorious) principle?
Or, or, maaaybe you're anti-principle?
Do you believe that all principles are evil and that all people who follow principles are somehow fundamentally suspect?
Tag @penderis
Not sure why I was tagged at this point I agree with @freebornangel - glad you tagged me though because as you know I am not good at keeping up with things :). I would add it is the data we perceive which then changes our perspective, but that is where you need to be aware that you are in fact accepting data and essentially running a test of it. I think that creates a case for not wanting to be polarizing because you realise that if you act on it then you have accepted and changed your principle. Not sure if this makes any sense but it is like having heard something which is contrary but repeating to see how others react, this then reinforces that you have been wrong to a degree or even right and then a person tends to merge or reject that but in general it is all a bit grey. If I think principles though I think rigid, and maybe a better word needs to be used when speaking of the choices that have been made and of governance in general because principles seem to be on a pedestal with morals and we are discussing the white lies in a sense. Absolutes are difficult.