Once again you avoid the question I’m asking. How did people break free from the rule of a king, queen or small group? They broke free by breaking the current “law of the land” and instituting a new law of the land by way of fiat. Are you OK with this?

“In today’s society if you are going to pick a life goal it probably makes sense for most people to pick one that is legal.”

If the people don’t want it to be legal and illegal activity is preventing the law from being changed, what should the people do? Should they adopt a life meaning that includes *not* following the law of the land, or should they stick with the rules of the caveat at all times?

“If you StevenK wish to start a bloody revolution you can feel free to do so (it is your life after all and you set its purpose) and see how far you get with it.”

If adopting the caveat is *optional* then why does the life meaning page make such a big deal about it and treat it as not being optional? This is a broken system, or it’s one nobody can fully understand because it’s not written clearly. Is the author of the page around so I can ask him/her?

This article might help you – Intelligent Design Made Mankind?

How did blacks in America gain their civil rights in the twentieth century? How did women gain the right to vote? How did smoking in restaurants change from legal to illegal? These changes in society were in large part brought by peaceful means. Martin Luther King spoke at huge peaceful demonstrations that drew attention to a problem. He did not advocate street warfare.

We can argue back and forth. The point is so simple it seems very strange you are arguing it. In today’s society if you are going to pick a life goal it probably makes sense for most people to pick one that is legal. If you StevenK wish to start a bloody revolution you can feel free to do so (it is your life after all and you set its purpose) and see how far you get with it.

Again – 1) what do you dislike about the idea that you get to pick the purpose of your life? 2) What is the purpose of your life?

I’m arguing on the basis of what is written on the meaning of life page.

“The caveat is saying that your life goal has to fit within the law of the land.”

The point you gloss over is that the rules *were* repeatedly broken to get where we are today. Regions/countries don’t go from being ruled by one or a few to the rule of democracy without people breaking the law of the land – and thus breaking the caveat. The life meaning of countless people were forcibly taken away so we could get to where we are today. You’re okay with this?

“In #44 do you have a text link that does not take an hour? Or can you summarize your point?”

No.

In #43 I don’t know what you are saying in the first part, and you may want to try restating it. This part makes sense – “This system says do whatever you want”. Yes. That is the point. Do whatever you want. You get to pick your life goal and live your life in any way you like (fitting it within the law of the land or you will be arrested).

In #44 do you have a text link that does not take an hour? Or can you summarize your point?

Overall – 1) what do you dislike about the idea that you get to pick the purpose of your life? 2) What is the purpose of your life?

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/68

This brings up questions the caveat doesn’t even address. Which group of humans does it mean when it says ‘fellow humans’?

- Group A may allow something for reason X, while Group B may not allow it for reason Y.

- Both groups together might agree for reason Z but Group C (a subset of A and B) says reasons X and Y are more important than reason Z.

- Which group of fellow humans do I use to help shape my life meaning?

- Does it matter what reason a group gives for allowing or disallowing something? Which group decides this?

It’s obvious that the caveat itself needs numerous caveats to answer these kind of questions – which is why I said this is a broken system. As the caveat stands now, you can justify pretty much any life meaning that you want because the caveat doesn’t give any details.

This system says do whatever you want according to the life meaning you have and justify it with personal, subjective reasons later.

This is the law now, but how did we get to this point as a species? We got there by repeatedly breaking the rules of the caveat until it became the majority position and eventually became law. The issue of slavery went through a similar process.

Suppose the majority of my fellow humans want freedom of speech, and also suppose my fellow humans want me to not change a specific law. Using the caveat as a guideline, how do these two responses shape the meaning of my life?

Should my life meaning include doing both – speak freely and *not* try to change the law? That’s what the caveat seems to be saying but it isn’t obvious.

What country do you live in? In the United States freedom of speech is there so people with “minority positions” can speak. There is no prohibition on speech to change laws. Right now there is a big debate about gay marriage (to change marriage law) and marijuana (to change its prohibition). Debate does not break any rules.