off topic: The cruelty of people, I will never understand.

[adina]

I agree with Todd.

I tend to believe a person is kind and caring, until they prove otherwise. Whether these traits are human nature or a learned behavior, I don't know. I know that my children are considerate and loving, is that because that is what we've taught them? Maybe. But it would go against our nature to teach them anything else.

And you could argue that people with violent tendancies learned that behavior. By lack of parenting, or abusive parenting, it could teach someone that the apropriate response to a situation is violence. Or that a person is not accountable for thier actions.

Goes both ways....I think it depends on what your personal beliefs are....

adina

[walterick]

We may have been bred by aliens, you're right Michael. There's more evidence suggesting that than not

However, I do see our nature as loving, honest and joyful. Kids are this until they're taught not to be, or until a basic need is not met and they revert to low behaviour in an attempt to win love or attention.

Our not our kids the best perveyors of truth?

Do not our kids run around hugging everything?

Happy?

Violence is shown to our kids every day, from Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner and Coyote to Power Rangers and Powerpuff Girls. We sit them in front of tv to babysit them then can't figure out why they set up backyard wrestling rings and annhilate each other.

Our natural state is love. Everything else is fear IMO

Rick

[schrackman]

If all men are by nature good and loving, as some of you above believe, then why does man need so many restraints from doing evil (whether divine, natural or man-made restraints)?

And just what is your definition of "good" and "loving"? If someone occasionally lies, or steals or cheats, is he still a good and loving person despite the injustice he has done to another?

Ray

[Todd Patten]

If all men are by nature good and loving, as some of you above believe, then why does man need so many restraints from doing evil (whether divine, natural or man-made restraints)?

And just what is your definition of "good" and "loving"? If someone occasionally lies, or steals or cheats, is he still a good and loving person despite the injustice he has done to another?

Ray

Ray -- most sociologists and phychologists say that lying is a natural and, at times, healthy part of human development. For example, when a parent explains to a child that they are can't tell momma what they picked out for a present. Or explaining to the child that it is better to tell a friend that the picture of a cow they just illustrated looks great, than to have them say it looks nothing like a cow. Lying is a very normal part of our behaviour. There's no question that this can be taken to an extreme, but so can many things. Even good things like religion.

I also believe that one can be inately "good" even if they steal or cheat. It is inherent that we know that stealing is wrong. However, it does not mean someone is evil. It means they have made mistakes. I have to say, I remember being a yound child and taking a friends toy without him knowing -- I stole it. Does that mean I am not a good person even though I give money to my sons church (regardless of the fact that I do not believe in it's teachings), coach t-ball, open doors for old ladies and say "thank you" to the lady at McDonalds each morning (bad habit, those McD's Sausage Egg and Cheese Bagels).

Cheating, be it at a game, in a relationship or any situation is wrong. However, it does not mean that we as humans are inately evil. "Good" does not mean "Perfect". It simply means that we know what is the right thing to do and try to do it as often as we can.

Man does not "need" restraints. Unfortunately, organized religion and many governments has convinced many that this is true. You make it seem as if we did not have these "restraints" everyone would suddenly join in anarchy. Sit back and take a look -- these restraints are MAN MADE. Given that the restraints are what many define as "good", this leads me to believe that man is, by nature, good.

[schrackman]

Hi Todd,

I never did like sociologists/psychologists all that much, simply because I think they rationalize and justify wrong behavior more often than not. I don't find your examples of children very convincing, since you have them being instructed by parents not to be honest. Furthermore, I think we all know the difference between holding back the truth for fun (keeping a present secret) or unnecessarily hurting someone's feelings and intentionally twisting the truth or fabrictating something for our own self-serving desires. The former could be considered normal/healthy and even compassionate, but the latter is just plain evil. And evil is not just some obscure theory...it is malevolent or illicit behavior that begins in our hearts and is manifested through our actions and behavior. Man does evil, because evil exists within him.

Now, to a kid, stealing his toy would be like my stealing your golf clubs (assuming you had golf clubs). What kind of person would do that? A good person? I think not. A thief? I think so. And the evil a thief does is worthy of punishment, is it not? You've shared with us what good things you now do as an adult, but you failed to share with us the bad things you do as well. If you are like other men, they are probably about as numerous as the good things you claim to do. Most people I encounter who are not religious tend to think that the good things they do cancel out the bad. And I often wonder if they ever think in the opposite terms: that the bad things they do cancel out the good things. Of course I know they don't think this way, because "Every man thinks he is right in his own eyes" despite whatever evil he has committed. I once was of that persuasion.

As a devoted religious person and faithful to my beliefs, not even I can claim to be good, Todd, because I know the propensity for evil that still dwells within me despite my conversion to Christ. There is really only one who is good, and his name is God, and when I compare myself to him, well, there is no comparison. I am deemed righteous by God not because of my inherent human nature, but only because of my faith in him to redeem me from that human nature. I can now do that which is truly good, but only because good (God) is now with me.

I wholly believe that if you let the beast loose, the beast will act like a beast. Without restraints man would be far worse off than he already is. There are many things that serve as restraints, and not all of them "man-made". There are divine restraints, such as what God provides for his people to keep them in "the way". There are natural restraints, such as those consequences that would naturally ensue from your doing wrong. For example, hit your wife and she just may leave you. There are man-made restraints, i.e. laws passed to protect ourselves from ourselves because we know what we are capable of. And then there is the human conscience (which I believe to be God-given), which inwardly reminds us that what we are about to do is inherently wrong, even if there isn't a man-made law against it. All these things serve to restrain man to some degree or another, because man is in need of restraining. This, to me, is simply one proof that man is not inherently good.


By the way, Loren, that dog reminds me of my dog, whose name is Peter. Peter is part lab and part shepherd, and the lady I got him from found him and his sister roaming the streets when they were puppies. Somebody had just let them go too. Here's a recent pic of him. Ain't he a cutie?

Ray

[adina]

I think the term evil here is being used rather loosly.

For example. My oldest came downstairs with vanilla smelling lip gloss shmeared on her cheeks. This was probably about 2 years ago. As soon as I saw and smelled her, I knew exactly where she had been. So I asked her what was on her cheeks. Her reply...nothing. So I say, it looks like lipgloss, where you playing in my makeup? Her reply...no. Well okay, then how did you get lip gloss on your cheeks. Her relpy...I don't know.

Now given she knew exactly how it got there and what it was, I knew she was lying. Why? Because she knew that it was a mistake and she didn't want to get in trouble. A mistake. That's all. Did she get in trouble for the lip gloss, no. But we did have a discussion about telling the truth. Was this her inner badness coming out? Nope, this was child's curiosity. That's all. Is she evil? No, not in the least bit, and I would have to clock anyone who would suggest otherwise.

And here comes one of the only religious comments I'll make, which I try to refrain from, because it isn't a discussion worth participating in. My views aren't going to change yours, your views aren't going to change mine. I don't agree with telling people that they are bad or evil. Whether it be the church, the government, parenting, school, whatever. The action they may have taken might be bad, but to tell someone that they are, especially a child, does nothing but trample thier self esteem, and encourage further similar behavior. After all, they are bad or evil person. Why strive for anything else.

[schrackman]

Hi Adina,

I think the term evil here is being used rather loosly.

For example. My oldest came downstairs with vanilla smelling lip gloss shmeared on her cheeks. This was probably about 2 years ago. As soon as I saw and smelled her, I knew exactly where she had been. So I asked her what was on her cheeks. Her reply...nothing. So I say, it looks like lipgloss, where you playing in my makeup? Her reply...no. Well okay, then how did you get lip gloss on your cheeks. Her relpy...I don't know.

Now given she knew exactly how it got there and what it was, I knew she was lying. Why? Because she knew that it was a mistake and she didn't want to get in trouble. A mistake. That's all. Did she get in trouble for the lip gloss, no. But we did have a discussion about telling the truth. Was this her inner badness coming out? Nope, this was child's curiosity. That's all. Is she evil? No, not in the least bit, and I would have to clock anyone who would suggest otherwise.

Unless she was told beforehand that your lip gloss was off limits, then I would agree this was simply a mistake, an unintentional error. However, if she knew she wasn't supposed to be in your lip gloss, then what you have is not a mistake but a clear act of disobedience, which would need to be dealt with. Her lying, on the other hand, was clearly intentional and designed to squirm out of whatever trouble she thought she was going to get into, and you were right to correct her for it. Now you may not think her lying hasn't anything to do with an inherent evil nature, but what else would you call it? You can't call it a mistake or a taught trait, because mistakes are not intentional and I am sure you didn't teach her to lie.

And here comes one of the only religious comments I'll make, which I try to refrain from, because it isn't a discussion worth participating in.

To tell you the truth, I wish more people here would comment on religious subjects, even those who aren't themselves religious. It's a shame, but I've actually got pm's from members of this forum who have said they wish they could speak as openly as I do about religion, but were afraid of what others might say or think about them. That shouldn't be the case here.

My views aren't going to change yours, your views aren't going to change mine.

Well, you never know about that.

I don't agree with telling people that they are bad or evil. Whether it be the church, the government, parenting, school, whatever. The action they may have taken might be bad, but to tell someone that they are, especially a child, does nothing but trample thier self esteem, and encourage further similar behavior. After all, they are bad or evil person. Why strive for anything else?

This is a good question. No one is saying, for example, you have to call someone "evil" for lying. All you need to do is let them know they are a "liar" and they'll know they have done evil. And one who has done evil should not feel good about themselves anyway. What they need to feel is guilt and shame for what they have done, for only then will they really stand a chance of correcting themselves and not repeating their error. And that is what you want people to strive for--to correct their erroneous ways. Calling evil for what it is isn't what encourages similar behavior; failure to confront the evil and punish it, however, will. That, I believe, is why we have so many repeat criminals. The original sentence wasn't tough enough to deter them from doing it again. Either that or they are simply incorrigible.

Ray

[Todd Patten]

I never did like sociologists/psychologists all that much, simply because I think they rationalize and justify wrong behavior more often than not

I suspect that you distrust most scientifical explanations?

I find your philosophy very depressing and self depreciating. I would like to know what you believe is behavior that is "bad" and behavior that is "good". I find it extremely hard to comprehend that one would think that people do equally as many bad things in the run of a life as they do bad things. I mean, we all do "good" things every single day. Opening doors, donating money, adopting children, comforting friends, complimenting a clerk at a store, giving a simple smile to someone. I promise you, good things outweigh the bad by a longshot.

The picture you paint is of a human nature who is only restricted by rule of law, be it religion or societal. You describe someone who should be suffering from internal torture every second they breathe. It's a truly sad and bleak vision of the world and human nature.

People are good. I see it every day in so many ways. I rarely see people who are bad. Very, very rarely.

[schrackman]

I suspect that you distrust most scientifical explanations?

I find your philosophy very depressing and self depreciating. I would like to know what you believe is behavior that is "bad" and behavior that is "good". I find it extremely hard to comprehend that one would think that people do equally as many bad things in the run of a life as they do bad things. I mean, we all do "good" things every single day. Opening doors, donating money, adopting children, comforting friends, complimenting a clerk at a store, giving a simple smile to someone. I promise you, good things outweigh the bad by a longshot.

The picture you paint is of a human nature who is only restricted by rule of law, be it religion or societal. You describe someone who should be suffering from internal torture every second they breathe. It's a truly sad and bleak vision of the world and human nature.

People are good. I see it every day in so many ways. I rarely see people who are bad. Very, very rarely.

Hi Todd,

There could be various explanations as to why you only see "good" in people. The first is perhaps you don't want to see any bad in them, even if it is plain view. Some people are like that. The second is you really don't know what other people do in private or in public, do you? You only see a glimpse of them as they open the door for you, or say hello, or volunteer for the local pta. You don't see them when they cheat on their taxes, or spread gossip about others, or lie to their wives, etc. Even your closest friends could be doing things that you don't know about. To say that you rarely see people do bad implies to me that perhaps you're not looking very closely, or that you don't permit yourself to be keenly aware of it, or that you just choose to ignore it.

Regarding scientific explanations, I have no problem with such things so long as they are truly scientific.

As for my so-called sad and bleak outlook, quite the opposite is true. I don't walk around tortured. On the contrary, I am a very happy person despite all the evil that goes on in this world. My view is simply to paint man as he is, not as I would would like him to be. That's just being a realist.

I would like to know what you believe is behavior that is "bad" and behavior that is "good".

That's easy. Glad you asked. Anything that God commands or encourages me to do is good; anything that he forbids or warns me not to do is bad. It's much easier this way because every man has his own standard ("Every man thinks he is right in his own eyes") while God has one standard for all. Same question to you...what is it that you believe is good/bad behavior?

Ray

[racingpinarello]

There could be various explanations as to why you only see "good" in people. The first is perhaps you don't want to see any bad in them, even if it is plain view. Some people are like that. The second is you really don't know what other people do in private or in public, do you? You only see a glimpse of them as they open the door for you, or say hello, or volunteer for the local pta. You don't see them when they cheat on their taxes, or spread gossip about others, or lie to their wives, etc. Even your closest friends could be doing things that you don't know about. To say that you rarely see people do bad implies to me that perhaps you're not looking very closely, or that you don't permit yourself to be keenly aware of it, or that you just choose to ignore it.


Ray

Ray there are also times, when people surprise you with good and kindness, but I digress for a second.

While some people may be self absorbed, selfish, or not nice to other people it doesn't make them evil. Evil and mean spirit are premeditated, such as Scott Petersen (killer) being an evil guy.

A child squirms and tells a fib to test the limits and boundries of parents. They don't have the vocabulary or the reasoning to say, "you know mom, I was trying this stuff on to be like you because you are so pretty." It's social behavior to test limits and to experiment. Adina was being a firm parent and they tested her boundries, and in the end they learned a lesson.

But back to my first sentence. At Citigroup, the firm offered $3 million to the tsnuami aid relief plan, and would match any employee contribution up to $10,000. As of last night, Citigroup and it's employees raised over $7.7 million dollars. We're a bunch of self absorbed greedy bastards, but hey we're not evil, and we showed it with our wallets. I was surprised to see such an emotional response from the partners and the firm.

In the mid-west, and in foreign countries I have seen exceptional levels of kindness, forgiving, and patience. It's my belief in humans that deep down they are good or Shakesperean plays like MacBeth would have no grounds. There is a reason that we have a conscious, and it's because people will do the right thing a majority of the time. I am not very religious, but have faith in my fellow man/woman/doggie woogie.

Loren

[schrackman]

Hi Loren,

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying man isn't capable of doing good. He most certainly is. The giving of aid to tsunami victims is proof of what good man can do when he chooses to do it. The point I'm trying to raise, however, is that man cannot be deemed inherently good when the fact of the matter is that every man chooses to do evil, in varying degrees. Also, there is a false idea out there that whatever good a man does it must somehow cancel out his bad deeds. But as I mentioned in my post above, why doesn't anyone ever think in opposite terms, i.e. that one's bad deeds cancels out his good deeds? Of course, no one hardly ever thinks that way because to do so would inevitably mean that one would not be able to view himself as good as he thought he was. And if he is not as good as he thought he was, then perhaps he is not inherently good either but can only claim that he does good on occassion?

When it comes to children, we have to be careful that we do not assign motives other than what we know is really there. When a child lies he does not contemplate in his mind that he's gonna try to test the limits of his parents. That might be how a parent views it, but it isn't how a child views it because that is not his thought process. Think back to when you were a kid. Why did you lie to your parents? I'm willing to bet it was for the same reason I did...because you wanted to avoid getting into trouble for what you did. You could see the consequences of your actions coming, and you wanted to worm your way out of it. Pure and simple. Getting away with lying, however, is what really teaches a child what boundries and limits he can cross and not expect to receive his due reward. Where, then, is the inherently good nature of a child when he chooses to lie to his parents in order to escape culpability for his actions?

I think Thomas Jefferson had one of the most interesting perspectives on man, government and morals. I often find myself agreeing with many of his observations. He wrote this in one instance:

The human character, we believe, requires in general constant and immediate control to prevent its being biased from right by the seductions of self-love." --Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

It's not that man doesn't know, in general, right from wrong, it's that he is incapable of always doing what is right all of the time and must be often compelled to do what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whether that compelling comes by laws, moral education and encouragement, religious inculcation, or threat of punishment. Such is the evidence for a major flaw in our human nature, so much so that we cannot claim to be inherently good.

Ray

Ray there are also times, when people surprise you with good and kindness, but I digress for a second.

While some people may be self absorbed, selfish, or not nice to other people it doesn't make them evil. Evil and mean spirit are premeditated, such as Scott Petersen (killer) being an evil guy.

A child squirms and tells a fib to test the limits and boundries of parents. They don't have the vocabulary or the reasoning to say, "you know mom, I was trying this stuff on to be like you because you are so pretty." It's social behavior to test limits and to experiment. Adina was being a firm parent and they tested her boundries, and in the end they learned a lesson.

But back to my first sentence. At Citigroup, the firm offered $3 million to the tsnuami aid relief plan, and would match any employee contribution up to $10,000. As of last night, Citigroup and it's employees raised over $7.7 million dollars. We're a bunch of self absorbed greedy bastards, but hey we're not evil, and we showed it with our wallets. I was surprised to see such an emotional response from the partners and the firm.

In the mid-west, and in foreign countries I have seen exceptional levels of kindness, forgiving, and patience. It's my belief in humans that deep down they are good or Shakesperean plays like MacBeth would have no grounds. There is a reason that we have a conscious, and it's because people will do the right thing a majority of the time. I am not very religious, but have faith in my fellow man/woman/doggie woogie.

Loren

[natatbeach]

It's not that man doesn't know, in general, right from wrong, it's that he is incapable of always doing what is right all of the time and must be often compelled to do what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whether that compelling comes by laws, moral education and encouragement, religious inculcation, or threat of punishment. Such is the evidence for a major flaw in our human nature, so much so that we cannot claim to be inherently good.

Ray

Well said. I've been reading this thread for a few days and I just wanted to tell you that you put that well. We've been in family counseling for a while and despite what your feelings may be on psychologist and such ours said something to me very similar to that.

just adding that:
Unless taught right from wrong (thru spiritual beliefs or parenting,etc) human beings are sadly enough flawed with a "survival instinct" that compels them to self preservation. Whether that comes in the route of "doing good" or "doing bad" all the choices that we make are to keep the cycle of our life/ quality of life moving forward in some coherent direction.

Like the poor dog being left in the woods(presuming that's what happened)...bad choice for the dog(and I really don't agree with their decision to do so if that's what they did) but ulitmately probably the "right" thing for the person who did it. wondering also while reading all this---if maybe he got lost during a camping trip or if he might have gotten lost and ended up living in the woods?. wondered if anyone thought about that possibility. ;)

[SeattleJo]

It seems like we keep trying to argue that people are inherently good or bad.

What if we take a middle ground. From looking at examples of peoples behaviors we could argue either way. Sometimes people amaze us for the good they do, and sometimes they shock us for the horror they do.

From a religious standpoint I don't think there is a clear winner either. We are made in God's image, right? So we are inherently good and full of love? Wait, but there is this concept called original sin. An idea that we have all been touched/corrupted by it. So we are inherently evil? I think we all have the capability to do much good, at the same time we all have the capability to do horrors. People in my mind are inherently valuable.

Just a few thoughts

SJ

[adina]

It seems like we keep trying to argue that people are inherently good or bad.

What if we take a middle ground. From looking at examples of peoples behaviors we could argue either way. Sometimes people amaze us for the good they do, and sometimes they shock us for the horror they do.

From a religious standpoint I don't think there is a clear winner either. We are made in God's image, right? So we are inherently good and full of love? Wait, but there is this concept called original sin. An idea that we have all been touched/corrupted by it. So we are inherently evil? I think we all have the capability to do much good, at the same time we all have the capability to do horrors. People in my mind are inherently valuable.

Just a few thoughts

SJ

Well put.

Also, good does not equal perfect.

[walterick]

Hello Ray

Devil's advocate:

What if I defined "good" as that which benefits human kind, and "bad" as that which hinders it?

Rick

ps I know I still owe you an email

[schrackman]

Hi Rick!

I guess you would then have to define the parameters of what actually constitutes that which benefits humanity and that which hinders it (but then again, that would differ greatly from person to person, now wouldn't it?). For example some people donate money for charity, and one would assume they did it just to benefit their fellow man. But what if they did it just to get kudos from their clients, or the public in general, or because they wished to impress someone or make some sort of gain from it? Some people actually feel quite justified in doing this, and consider it a good deed nevertheless. But does motive play a part in what you define as what is beneficial for humanity? Or does the ends justify the means?

I recall an instance some years back when a predominanty white church in Camarillo decided to assist a black church in Simi Valley, at a time when the local newspapers were calling local pastors (including myself) and asking questions about modern segregation in the local churches. Instead of discreetly giving the assistance (which is what the Bible teaches), the church members parked their cars about a mile down the street from the church in Simi Valley and then publicly marched to the church to give them a large check. In the process, the local newspapers were informed by the giving church of the event, and photographers were sent to the scene to chronicle every step of the way. The photos and story made it a week later into the front page headlines of an article entitled "Sunday Segregation". Would you consider what this church did in the best interest of their fellow humans, or would it have to be discounted on account of their desire to "advertise" their deed and serve their own church's self-interest?

Similarly, what about the fellow who undermines his co-worker in order to advance himself or a friend for a position? Certainly, either he or his friend benefits from his actions, but what about the fellow who got stepped on? Is such a deed considered as "in the best interests of humanity"? Or is it something that impedes humanity by virtue of the fact that someone was forced to lose in order that someone could win?

Also, what about the woman who aborts her unborn child? Some women actually think they are doing themselves a service by ridding themselves of such a big responsibility. In fact, most abortions are obtained because the woman doesn't want the inconvenience of raising a child. Some might even see it as one way to keep the human poplulation down. One less mouth to feed. So I suspect that some women would see abortion as a benefit to humankind, in that neither they nor the world is burdened with yet the responsibility of another soul. Other women, however, see it as a deplorable practice, one of which undermines respect for human life.

These are but a few examples I could think of in just a few minutes in response to your question. So I suppose that before I could actually agree or disagree with your thesis, you would first need to define the parameters of what is and is not beneficial to humanity. But as I stated at the beginning, this would vary with every individual. And so a uniform standard would be very difficult to achieve unless you could get those who would differ with your conclusions to compromise their positions.

And yes, you DO owe me an email!! :-) Don't worry...I'm patient.

Ray

Hello Ray

Devil's advocate:

What if I defined "good" as that which benefits human kind, and "bad" as that which hinders it?

Rick

ps I know I still owe you an email

[walterick]

"There could be various explanations as to why you only see "good" in people."

Here's a thought: It has been said that people will see in themselves what we see in them. I choose to see the good in people because that is what I want them to see in themselves. The better they see themselves, the better they will act. The better they act, the better they will become. And before you know it, lo and behold you have a good person in front of you

And all it took was for me to consciously choose my response to them.

Whether or not they are good inherently doesn't matter in that moment that I am looking them in the eye and pulling their humanity from them. They could be Adolf Hitler, Sadam Husein or - yes - even George Bush and I could still sit there with them and pull the goodness out of them no matter how much harm they were doing to me.

We have a responsibility to helping people become better people. You can help me, I can help you. It doesn't seem to matter what our nature is so much as what are you gong to do with it?!

I threw that George Bush reference in there just to give you a little rib there Shrackman hope you took it in good nature I'll get crakckin on that longer email soon.

Regards,
Rick

[Photo-John]

We may have been bred by aliens, you're right Michael. There's more evidence suggesting that than not

I love you, you goddamn hippie freak! I can't believe they haven't sent you back to Berkeley yet.

[another view]

Hee hee... But John gets a demerit!

[Lara]

I love you, you goddamn hippie freak! I can't believe they haven't sent you back to Berkeley yet.

Wiping tears from my eyes from laughing so hard. LOLOL

All I can say is people like Rick make up for the cruel people in this world Loren. Sorry to hear what happened to you at Christmas. Who ever these people are, I believe the addage, "what goes around, comes around."

[walterick]

"All I can say is people like Rick make up for the cruel people in this world Loren."

Aww, thanks hon. Now's probably not a good time to tell you I cheated on my shop test in the 9th grade.

I got an F anyway.

[walterick]

Let's chant together now!

oooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Hippie by heart, scientist in my mind ;)

Rick
Maybe I was born on the wrong coast.

[racingpinarello]

Do not our kids run around hugging everything?

Happy?

Our natural state is love. Everything else is fear IMO

Rick

Having seen my niece and nephews grow up, I can personally attest that they are loving children until thought to be otherwise.

Hopefully my children will be as loving as they are.

I'm glad that this post brought out good dialogue and even with strong opinions, nobody was offended.

Loren