GRGR(3) talking dog 44.20

[Paul Mackin]

Richard Romeo wrote:

> >
> >Technically, yes. Much like one cannot be a born again christian. But
> >by the time we are post adolescent we have been inundated with
> >morality  to the point where amorality must be in some way
> >received or achieved. The reason I suggest that Blicero is decadent
> >rather than amoral is the echo of a near "regret", almost the
> >struggling of a conscience in Blicero's reflections. Amorality
> >would'nt bother.
> >---------------------------------------
> come on guys, he put a fucking kid in a rocket.  What is Gottfried like
> frieking 16!!!? we feel some sort of sympathy for Weissman, but...
> we should regret that he didn't go up himself, the coward.  And he's a major
> coward, no matter what mittelwerke says.

Wouldn't this make B IMmoral rather than necessarily Amoral? Isn't  decadent
closely akin to immoral. It implies there is something to decay  (something to
do the decky dance with).

On Charles' point of our all being  inundated with morality in childhood I
guess this is true--but mostly  in the sense that we TOLD by our parents,
teachers, clergymen , etc. what is right or wrong.   But does this necessarily
result in a moral person. I'm thinking of all the talk about bad kids (who
shoot people etc.) lately. There are theories floating around about what went
wrong with THEIR moral conditioning. Theories beyond those of Dan Quayle and
Gary Bauer I mean. Was some mysterious factor of bonding with humanity
missing.?A missing mother figure or something of the sort? Is Mother the
original Pavlov without even knowing it (or how she does it)?
                                P.