Discussions of the principles of honor and conscience before

[Biar welt]

Engineer expressed himself, that THE ORGANIZATION OF ALLIANCE . - THE IDEA of Oleg and that his organization must be based beyond the principles of validity and honor. Further on the theme. Moderator

Che, at the point of the maximalism? From where you , that he does not refer to . But… you , I also have to it no relation, and therefore I cannot contradict.

[Biar welt]

wrote (a):
Che, at the point of the maximalism? From where you , that he does not refer to . But… you , I also have to it no relation, and therefore I cannot contradict.
// to contradict , but not to unite us under its flag











I please forgiveness, but I consider it necessary to again interfere with my “considerations”.
Gentlemen, you will focus attention on the difference before the aforesaid by Valerie and by Sergey Mikhaylovich.
Valerie for determining the desired meaning uses a concept “unconscientiousness”. This is - the determined by jurists term. In contrast to utilized siemens “decency” and “validity”, which by different people are understood in different ways. I, for example, consider that decency - this correspondence of someone of one to established by someone another order, and immediately I am interested, and who, strictly, established… and he is worthwhile with it matter to have. But validity, , it in each its. And a question about the validity for the specific group of people here is considered. I.e., for another group this will not seem by valid. Therefore, in addition , under such “flags” it is possible to join only beside the political parties, whose slogans ALWAYS - deception. Because their target is only assumption of power. But then all learn the following targets of batch.
And if we agree ourselves with me said, then it is necessary to negotiate that they mean terms. Valerie, you will not say, as you do understand before your context word “unconscientiousness”? and, of course, all it would be useful to learn, as siemens understands the concepts utilized as far as it. But it is possible to consider after this, possible under such “flags” to gather supporters.

, I greatly will regret, that from “the collective of co-authors” I do not know the name of person, who wrote latter statement. Finally first is supplied base under that, above how we .
The principles of validity and decency in each person are their.
Analogously and they also differ in the different peoples and .
AND IT IS NECESSARY TO BE GATHERED COURAGES THIS HONEST TO RECOGNIZE!
.. we begin to prescribe, “that there is that” and “who there is who”.
But there is a problem. Man aloud names some values, and it performs on others. Here and it turns out that “on their fetuses you learn them”.

[Biar welt]

wrote (a):
I please forgiveness, but I consider it necessary to again interfere with my “considerations”.
Gentlemen, you will focus attention on the difference before the aforesaid by Valerie and by Sergey Mikhaylovich.
Valerie for determining the desired meaning uses a concept “unconscientiousness”. This is - the determined by jurists term. In contrast to utilized siemens “decency” and “validity”, which by different people are understood in different ways. I, for example, consider that decency - this correspondence of someone of one to established by someone another order, and immediately I am interested, and who, strictly, established… and he is worthwhile with it matter to have. But validity, , it in each its. And a question about the validity for the specific group of people here is considered. I.e., for another group this will not seem by valid. Therefore, in addition , under such “flags” it is possible to join only beside the political parties, whose slogans ALWAYS - deception. Because their target is only assumption of power. But then all learn the following targets of batch.
And if we agree ourselves with me said, then it is necessary to negotiate that they mean terms. Valerie, you will not say, as you do understand before your context word “unconscientiousness”? and, of course, all it would be useful to learn, as siemens understands the concepts utilized as far as it. But it is possible to consider after this, possible under such “flags” to gather supporters.
// apropos batches. this what in you targets that you the batch of green did enter?

[Biar welt]

Personally my concepts of validity, decency, and it is simple the concept of life to to 10 commandments. I try to live on them. To steal is possible only in state (moreover stranger).
Do not add it did not add
Not it did kill- not kill
Not be sorry- will give down the shirt
Do not steal here here I it gave
here here I gave -here here I it gave before nature to swing











wrote (a):
, I greatly will regret, that from “the collective of co-authors” I do not know the name of person, who wrote latter statement.
I please forgiveness, it was not represented. Actually, the previous post - my personal, but not our corporate. I is simple man, they call me Sergey Gladkov.
Quotation:
Analogously and they also differ in the different peoples and .
AND IT IS NECESSARY TO BE GATHERED COURAGES THIS HONEST TO RECOGNIZE! …
That the representation (not principles, based on your permission) about the validity and decency in different people - different, IT IS NOT ANALAGOUS TO so that they in the different peoples and religions are different.
I share individual and . and COURAGE here not moreover. I have enous courage (to me more on the soul word “courage”) to state: I CLAIM that the peoples do not differ from each other regarding the concepts about the evil and the good. There are no good and poor peoples. People good and evil exist. But also these are not the aspects of your discussion, , before this theme, if you wish to obtain RESULT. (you Che the peoples do encounter, A!? )
Siemens, if your principle it was NOT WORK with “the poor”, then you could not buy the roll of grain, without having preliminarily died to hunger during the preparation of the soul of seller. But you are still living, it is correct? But if to you delivery they would not give on this roll based on hundred, then they would become not to the grain (to me also).
Quotation:
Man aloud names some values, and it performs on others. Here and it turns out that “on their fetuses you learn them”.
About “the fetuses”. Give let us replace this word as far as “the activities”: not it is so poetical, but it is nearer to the meanings of the fact that here, on the forum, occurs, as it seems me. The previous paragraph is illustration to this.
By the way, your phrase about the fact that all one should “be gathered courage honest” to recognize that, before that believe personally you, me it tells that you - honest and daring person.

wrote (a):
… That the representation (not principles, based on your permission) about the validity and decency in different people - different, IT IS NOT ANALAGOUS TO so that they in the different peoples and religions are different.
I share individual and . and COURAGE here not moreover. I have enous courage (to me more on the soul word “courage”) to state: I CLAIM that the peoples do not differ from each other regarding the concepts about the evil and the good. There are no good and poor peoples. People good and evil exist. But also these are not the aspects of your discussion, , before this theme, if you wish to obtain RESULT. (you Che the peoples do encounter, A!? : naug: : naug: : sm: )





It is possible to say that there are many themes, with respect to which the opinions of many peoples coincide. For example, violence. But here to repulse as far as force girl and to do by its wife? To have several wives simultaneously, or on the turn, they are spread - they are married. Russians consider that polygamy- sin, and to be spread it is possible. In some peoples conversely. Perhaps before this all peoples are identical?











But, siemens, and what relation to the theme, before the we with you now are located, has. for example, conversation about the culture OF THE PEOPLES? By the way, it is ready to answer questions about the correspondence to the theme of its statements. and I consider such questions strongly useful.





But based on what it were begun for the sake of the fact?

[Biar welt]

But based on what it were begun for the sake of the fact?
/// E the brother of this already hardly who- remembers. Well there was that the type:
He said something to me
I said something to it
He said something to me
I said something to it
He said something to me
I TO IT, THAT YOU DID SAY?
But it is actual in order to comprehend the principles of honor - is necessary much
In me is a report on this theme - to THE ETHICS AND THE MORALS
if to whom interestingly I can throw down down the post office…
But in each they different - therefore must be treaty where all
Type the treaty
Normal boys based on one side - and real fellows with another
They about matter ........





Throw down the post office.
But generally those, who begin such strange markets, must be urgently transmitted down any extra-heavy works. For example, for the winter hermetic sealing of Ostankino tower from the tube.
Moral questions somewhere vanish.

[NEdlener]

Bear, regards! Throw report down the post office. It is interesting! Who can unite us under his flag? It is ready to participate before all and battles.

[Biar welt]

To Keen it is mandatory - current in the evening or in the daytime - necessary to go count to supplement.
But really are not sufficient
Wished to write who and what us can join - but somehow to . Themselves you will hit upon

After the best example of the determination of decency serve “black pages”. The development of this tendency I already described before “the formula of the validity” of year 1,5 ago. The people recognized this after abstruse project. Therefore I will try to adapt project to our relations. But so that it would be more understandably, I will give living example.
Serious frictions arose in me with some . Extraneous person knows personally neither me nor those, against whom I appear, but they - against down me. But he knows people, which know well me, and my opponents.





And vice versa: if dishonorable Pete about answers badly, and - it is good about his opponents, and considerable VA - on the contrary, that conclusions to draw does not represent labor.
Another question, that each person is culpable and tries to be honest before the questions, before which to him it is profitable to be honest. The higher the intellect and culture, that man further checks, when his evil is returned to it.
But, it does stand to be honest with the fact, who wishes you to deceive?

[sol]

wrote (a):
After the best example of the determination of decency serve “black pages”…..
But, it does stand to be honest with the fact, who wishes you to deceive?
yes, me this question also interests. Decision still did not take.

[Biar welt]

But I long ago for itself this question solved.
Cannot be been to honest with the fact who you wishes to deceive. -
And already not as it cannot be been to good with the fact who you already deceived - there are situations when you they threw - type set of - itself you know that this but greediness of it ruined.
And entirely other matter when - you “its it throws” - certainly first necessary cannot be hinted that so - can man nevertheless it was mistaken.
Chance it is necessary to give to be corrected.

[WxEdeEogle]

Bear wild wrote (a):
Cannot be been to honest with the fact who you wishes to deceive.
“He wishes” - yet not crime.
As far as your logic then it is necessary to judge at the point of the rape, if only I will look down the woman with the evident longing.
Only act can be criminal. Intentions are not under the jurisdiction.

[Biar welt]

He wishes - these are concept is ductile.





Or the understating of capacity - allegedly forgotten - meters on 100 - with the capacity in 2000 - as and it is not evident. also - he wishes

[WxEdeEogle]

Then you it turns out that will allow with the man you cost you talk, and he in this case strut will arrange… you him will suspect besides the intention to bring to you … and you its will fall down. But he completely and wished nothing such, but simply in it head turned and it arose…
Not-e- e, so is also cannot.

[USBIK]

There was time when man was judged on . it advanced time when they began to judge according to, but now came time when man it was critical at the point of its . low thinking does not judge only because that they are not able and, judging as far as everything, still for long they will not learn.

[Biar welt]

Then you it turns out that will allow with the man you cost you talk, and he in this case strut will arrange… you him will suspect besides the intention to bring to you … and you its will fall down. But he completely and wished nothing such, but simply in it head turned and it arose…
Not-e- e, so is also cannot.





By the way repeatedly it saw. as people with the conversation many times changed counter under the different impacts and defense. One struts more widely placed on - another nearer it approached (for the close combat). The first became under the jolt (by strut) by the second under and so forth… more frequently simply they resigned themselves - not always of hunting to inspect whose better…
Personally I also and before the business try to conduct. He speaks give without the treaty - I I tell before 100% of . He speaks give left treaty I I tell before 70% of . He speaks give you begin and advance () will be after 3 days (now there is no money) - I speak that we beyond the detached mission on three days… Approximately thus

No one intends to judge no one. Is the opinion about me, for example, concrete, that I the money earned during the association will spend not on juridical matters, but down my stupid inventions. And no one simply will give to me the money of its and it will be laws. He me does not know, but it knows the opinion of people of which it knows itself and which know me. In order not to give its personal money - this is more than it is sufficient.

[WxEdeEogle]

I you did not in view have.
I only answered the phrase of the bear of wild “it cannot be been to honest with the fact who you he wishes to deceive”.

[Biar welt]

No one intends to judge no one. Is the opinion about me, for example, concrete, that I the money earned during the association will spend not on juridical matters, but down my stupid inventions. And no one simply will give to me the money of its and it will be laws. He me does not know, but it knows the opinion of people of which it knows itself and which know me. In order not to give its personal money - this is more than it is sufficient.
Question before that of the jump in me of personal money!!!
in me would be money I it would give down a good invention - would be monitored the course of development as far as possible it would help. - But I am not the son of the oligarch

No, not about that you.
I in 1999, after using the pre-election situation (beside the State Duma), printed out 1000 spec. “the formulas of validity” and gave down students. Of 1000 people 2 they did not agree with the idea. And only 2 people gathered to me the signatures of their friends in order to check the work of formula on the selections. (OF THOUSAND!!!) One proposed at the point of the small money to gather the signatures of students. But for whom I had to be liable and penetrate the formula of validity? Only for those 2nds of thousand. But 99,8% must live previous life, deceiving and being deceived.
Visualize that license down gives the official, who has smaller qualification than it the one who solicits license. Or, for example, president's administration invites for the consultations of expert on the gunite, which cannot obtain the gunite of better than that, which is proposed to penetrate. What advice will obtain president?
So before the federation.
Can lead people, which are capable of proposing the more advanced and valid methodology than my. But for whom from those 99,8% they must work? The people did not regain vision, but it is therefore necessary it…, until it regains vision.

[Biar welt]

To me as always did not suffice formation in order to calculate morals.
In my opinion here again a question - who is guilty?
But personally I did become accustomed to answer a question - that to make?





I do not know as remaining - and personally in me this formula based on the childhood of of of errors. And I not down that in order to transfer it down the paper- I dully name intuition.
Yes even what to make with the people? Although- beside which does mean…?

[WxEdeEogle]

To me as always did not suffice formation in order to calculate morals.
Not . In me formation before the abundance, but I also nothing comprehended.

Represent that you pass examination in mathematics to the instructor, who knows the object of worse you.
But indeed it must still and teach.
There are many such cases. It is possible to take before the license department of Gosstroy (State Committee for Construction) mountain climber, who does not have experience of . How it will give license down ? But just as now they give. Those, who do not consider, he represents itself after clever, but it tries to keep us at the point of the idiots.
does pose correct question - that to make? I has long ago written about the fact that to make, but “the having eyes, yes do not see”. And they do not understand, but must reach they themselves. When the base mass of the people matures, then it will be possible to be joined. But thus far this calls to mind the collection of all beside the herd, but already in no way not beside the tourist group.

[Xopih]

Bear wild wrote (a):
He wishes - these are concept is ductile.





Or the understating of capacity - allegedly forgotten - meters on 100 - with the capacity in 2000 - as and it is not evident. also - he wishes
, this no longer does " wish”, this already the process! But he wishes - this when to it beside the head such thoughts come, it is spilled by the morning - and thinks: “but not to throw down to me meters it is such one hundred of the detachment - perhaps it will not note.”

THIS HAPPENED!
And before this it is necessary to itself to confess. The people decided to be joined with the best intentions. And occurred failure before the theme “…”. suddenly ceased to triple. Are not stipulated principles, on which all are joined. Manuals - this for the formality. But before the essence? There are no rules, which, as the normal law of the development of human relations, it would guarantee, to all agreeable, satisfaction according to the joint operation. Or it would throw out those, who were agreeable only before the words. And rules of the game must be written. But down the not recorded situation and for the current decisions to have leader, capable of making decisions and of bearing responsibility.

[Camd vals]

wrote (a):
Are not stipulated principles, on which all are joined. //// there are no rules, which, as the normal law of the development of human relations, it would guarantee, to all agreeable, satisfaction according to the joint operation.
Why? Me seems, major principle - decency. “Peasant said - peasant did”. Perhaps someone did abolish this rule? You (not you personally, but everything) - against?





wrote (a):
Or it would throw out those, who were agreeable only before the words.
So such are screened gradually. And not only before the work, but also before the seamounts, where it strikes the treachery especially painfully.
wrote (a):
And rules of the game must be written. But down the not recorded situation and for the current decisions to have leader, capable of making decisions and of bearing responsibility.
Where to write? The books on the ethics, the philosophy it is full. Will appear one more, which they will read only those, who so conduct a worthy way of life. But these recordings will not prove useful to remaining.
, if it wrote confused.

Pan- such rules there is and a pan- Uzbek almost always on them (rule) simply we this we do not note, but it is it's a pity. But much is there said. “That having eyes yes , that has ears yes .”

[USBIK]

People devise laws and then seek openings, so that their . you do not forget, friends my, that laws and the court of terrestrial and that above the terrestrial stands ABOVE-GROUND AND EACH of us to himself the justice and that only he one knows, why he enters precisely so, and not otherwise!