1  |   Order by index

Jul 25, 2004, 4:45am

Absolutely Xelag, your first few lines have said it so well in just the same
way I have always felt it. I was bothered only when I got to this line:



> Or must one be USA-certified before receiving a human birth right? Seems
so :(



I hope that you did not "read" that in anything I said. If you did somehow
get that impression from my statement about Hu, I need to explain that
(besided that this was not a good forum for it) I was only talking about his
not having a right to vote here. It's not an opinion, it's just the way it
works. And that is only if he is not yet a naturalized citizen. If he has
become one, then he would probably be told that he should not complain
unless he DID vote in the past (if he was able to) and does plan to vote
again. In other words, if you see a need for change, do what you have a
legal right to do to change it before complaining. And make it nice. (But
all these arguments, insults, uninformed statements or even the informed
statements here just do not seem to have solved anything at all, and maybe
takes away some of what Active Worlds could be doing for at least a few
citizens of the real world who inhabit it. My first 2 years in AW were like
that :-(

You might have read an earlier post where I agreed, in theory, with Hu's
statement about borders. Somehow the idea of kings and queens, presidents
and dictators, ownership and control all seem so depraved (I couldn't think
of just the right word here), but I guess I can see how it came to that.
Some work harder than others and deserve the shelter they alone constructed,
the food they alone harvested, etc, but for one human to have control over
another human just does not seem right. Who made the first rule? A person
comes into the world with his body and mind only, so that's where his
control should end. (But wait, his parents actually could claim ownership,
and their parents..) But somewhere along the line it was decided that we all
needed to break into small groups and have "guidance". Or we would have
anarchy I guess, but that doesn't work, either. Who has the solution? I wish
we could all have blue cards that allowed us to go anywhere in the world and
have everyone else happy to see us. Now someone will say if it were not for
the USA the world would have that.

These conversations here never help, often hurt, and cause divisions that
will be hard to heal, and besides all that-they are off-topic (including
mine). People do not come here with the sole intention of healing the world
so they see things from a very singular point of view, and the pacifist in
me gets more and more jaded each time. I am sure I am not alone.





>I have always tried to see human beings as having the same
>full-fledged rights as other human beings. Laws differ from place to
>place, I leave that to the lawmakers. But in a discussion like this,
>green, yellow or red cards have no place: freedom of speech is not a
>USA right, it is a universal right, often denied.

>Laws and regulations are needed, surely, including green cards. But
>does one realise that, in fact, the USA is populated by invadors from
>Europe, and forcefully migrated populations from Africa, and people
>searching refuge? And that, in most cases, to the detriment of the
>people that lived in the land before these invasions? So who has
>green card? Don't all people living in USA now, whatever their origin
>or status, have the right to be respected? Or must one be
>USA-certified before receiving a human birth right? Seems so :(

>Alex

1  |   Order by index