<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We Were Meant To Live For So Much More</title>
	<atom:link href="http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: lovie</title>
		<link>http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/#comment-132779</link>
		<dc:creator>lovie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much/#comment-132779</guid>
		<description>The cab driver is so nice, sayang his wife so much. How I wish I can have a husband like that in the future. Who doesn't like to be pampered and all? =)
Cheer up girl. *hugs*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The cab driver is so nice, sayang his wife so much. How I wish I can have a husband like that in the future. Who doesn&#8217;t like to be pampered and all? =)<br />
Cheer up girl. *hugs*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: songjun</title>
		<link>http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/#comment-131652</link>
		<dc:creator>songjun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much/#comment-131652</guid>
		<description>sheon : you're basing figures on pictures whose timing and location was not corelated. Also, one did not take into account the inflow and outflow of people and the 'flow rate' of people. a picture might snap the number at that point in time but without those considerations, u cant say u can tell its about 200k. even the organisers say its about 40 - 50k , max 100k and gov figs are about 10k max, so u can estimate based on biasness , about 40 - 50 to be about right. And well, that makes them arm chair supporters :) want to talk about change and complain but dont want to risk a little brutality?whats that all about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sheon : you&#8217;re basing figures on pictures whose timing and location was not corelated. Also, one did not take into account the inflow and outflow of people and the &#8216;flow rate&#8217; of people. a picture might snap the number at that point in time but without those considerations, u cant say u can tell its about 200k. even the organisers say its about 40 - 50k , max 100k and gov figs are about 10k max, so u can estimate based on biasness , about 40 - 50 to be about right. And well, that makes them arm chair supporters :) want to talk about change and complain but dont want to risk a little brutality?whats that all about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: songjun</title>
		<link>http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/#comment-131651</link>
		<dc:creator>songjun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much/#comment-131651</guid>
		<description>jeff : -.- no u dont get my point. Im talking about the theory of democracy. Of course i dont mean literally about that cannibal thing. Im talking about the tenets of 'free speech' lots of people tend to overuse. 

Barring the example of the cannibal, lets say, i will use your example of 'limit to unlimited free speech'.

 "If the leader of a hate group rallies a group together and announces to all of them - now go find a Christian or a Muslim and beat them to death, and they go to do that, that injures others’ rights and freedoms."

It is their right to voice their disdain for a race / religion is it not? if i can raise my voice against government, why cant i not rally against my neighbour who happens to be of a different creed? What is to stop me from saying " oh i hate christians because they have such a holier than thou attitude and the bible is wrong". Although lets say the rallier keeps saying stuff like that and provoking without actually saying 'lets go hunt them down', someone somewhere is going to break and then things will start to happen.

So who sets the arbitary limit to that limitation? What right has anyone to set a limit? As i said before, ethics, law and morality is subjective and arbitary. To a conservative religionist, my right to bomb an abortion clinic is a right given by God and supercedes any 'right' by humans. 

anyway, democracy led to the rise of hitler note in case :) And america has toppled/supported the toppling of many democratically elected leaders before and continue to support dictator/autocratic countries.

We talk about freedom of speech and freedom of this and that, without realising how hypocritical it is sometimes it is to yap about it yet when i say NIGGER, everyone goes.. no no you shouldnt say that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>jeff : -.- no u dont get my point. Im talking about the theory of democracy. Of course i dont mean literally about that cannibal thing. Im talking about the tenets of &#8216;free speech&#8217; lots of people tend to overuse. </p>
<p>Barring the example of the cannibal, lets say, i will use your example of &#8216;limit to unlimited free speech&#8217;.</p>
<p> &#8220;If the leader of a hate group rallies a group together and announces to all of them - now go find a Christian or a Muslim and beat them to death, and they go to do that, that injures others’ rights and freedoms.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is their right to voice their disdain for a race / religion is it not? if i can raise my voice against government, why cant i not rally against my neighbour who happens to be of a different creed? What is to stop me from saying &#8221; oh i hate christians because they have such a holier than thou attitude and the bible is wrong&#8221;. Although lets say the rallier keeps saying stuff like that and provoking without actually saying &#8216;lets go hunt them down&#8217;, someone somewhere is going to break and then things will start to happen.</p>
<p>So who sets the arbitary limit to that limitation? What right has anyone to set a limit? As i said before, ethics, law and morality is subjective and arbitary. To a conservative religionist, my right to bomb an abortion clinic is a right given by God and supercedes any &#8216;right&#8217; by humans. </p>
<p>anyway, democracy led to the rise of hitler note in case :) And america has toppled/supported the toppling of many democratically elected leaders before and continue to support dictator/autocratic countries.</p>
<p>We talk about freedom of speech and freedom of this and that, without realising how hypocritical it is sometimes it is to yap about it yet when i say NIGGER, everyone goes.. no no you shouldnt say that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff from LA</title>
		<link>http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much-more/#comment-131357</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff from LA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://quaintly.net/2007/11/26/we-were-meant-to-live-for-so-much/#comment-131357</guid>
		<description>That's why we have democracies, so that everyone has an equal opportunity to opine on what infringes on their rights.

No cannibalistic society has ever been a true democracy.  They have all been theocracies ruled by crazy power-mad priests or tyrannical governments run by a tribal chief or a tribal council.  There never has been a cannibalistic society where every member of the society has an equal vote.  Why?  Because given the choice, no member of the tribe would like to put themselves at risk of being eaten.  

Moreover, no democracy has ever decided to become a cannibalistic society.  That seems to provide evidence for the contention that when you get enough people together and give them an equal voice, there are certain freedoms and beliefs that they agree that everyone ought to have, and one of those beliefs is that eating one another is wrong.  To say that a democracy could theoretically/abstractly lead to such extremes as cannibalism is to deny the evidence we have seen in history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s why we have democracies, so that everyone has an equal opportunity to opine on what infringes on their rights.</p>
<p>No cannibalistic society has ever been a true democracy.  They have all been theocracies ruled by crazy power-mad priests or tyrannical governments run by a tribal chief or a tribal council.  There never has been a cannibalistic society where every member of the society has an equal vote.  Why?  Because given the choice, no member of the tribe would like to put themselves at risk of being eaten.  </p>
<p>Moreover, no democracy has ever decided to become a cannibalistic society.  That seems to provide evidence for the contention that when you get enough people together and give them an equal voice, there are certain freedoms and beliefs that they agree that everyone ought to have, and one of those beliefs is that eating one another is wrong.  To say that a democracy could theoretically/abstractly lead to such extremes as cannibalism is to deny the evidence we have seen in history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
