The society founded upon a scapegoat (always innocent, would say Girard) does not perceive actually its victim as innocent. The scapegoat had enraged the gods, killed his mother, or simply for its conditions (children/virgins killed to appease the gods). All of these excuses only mask the innocence of the original victim.
The society reflects that foundational moment in order to not devolve to the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.

Democritus swears that the abderitans are all liars; Democritus is an abderitan; then, Democritus is lying; then, all abderitans says the truth; the, Democritus is right; then, all abderitans are liers. This argument, referred many times, including a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, extends infinitely.
Logics can have these unsolving arguments; it have its basis in faith, actually. We have to believe in the grounds of a discipline in order to discuss it. Epistemologically, there in such thing as a distinct ground for religion or science, as pointed Feyerabend, as all things, at last, are based on belief.


Actually, I revised the topics thinking about the rise of murder punishment in the civilizations, as I'm reading some things in Criminology. The tradition can be a common ground, but it seems weak and undemonstrable.

I've heard that argument many times. Actually, it is a petitio principii, because the conclusion is included in the premises.
The only thing that can be explained by the argument that in the fact of living we are doing a point of life is merely functional. The system of a living being has in itself a point, homeostasis, as is referred in second order cybernetics. I should say that we are different of a dog; cybernetics is not the point here.

The point in life relies mostly in what we believe about freedom and determinism.
Even though, it is possible to say that life is pointless in both ways, just because if we have a real freedom of choice (the point in freedom, at least in one concept of freedom, that consists in freedom as absence of constraint), then morals are always pure choice (Sartre), and life goes only on that planning. The objects are only subjective and point of life is reducted to nothing.
In the other hand, detrminism can provide, in one particular sense, a point in life, in the goal of determinism. But what about the determined to not reach the goal? They have point in life? What about determinism as a darwinian social structure? It has a goal? I think it's impossible to say about determinism that it provides a real point in life.
But, in fact, a second concept of freedom can provide  limited point in life, again, marked by choice. Isaiah Berlin refers to it in a well-known article, seeing this freedom as a power to determine ourselves. The point in life here resides in what we decide to be.

Maybe I'm too old for this topic, but I think that the greatest achievement is the Human Rights Declaration of 1790, in France, and the Universal Human Rights Bill, of 1948.

Without that, No P0rn. LOL.

I hear many things as the things that you hear. If you want things a little bit dark, you can hear Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, Echo & the Bunnymen. If you are more synth oriented, Yazoo, Erasure, Kraftwerk, Soft Cell, Cabaret Voltaire, Ultravox are very good bands, but in fact the are very p o p.

I recommend www.musicplasma.com
Just put your favorite artist and you'll have a few recommendations.

New Order - Bizarre Love Triangle

The Doors - Light my Fire

I like very much wine (Chile has a history in top quality wines), and I think that they don't have bad taste. I like so much Gewürztraminer, Pinot Noir, Carmenčre and Shiraz.
In the other hand I like so much Red Vermouth. It's hard in taste, but a good drink in parties. It makes good mixes with gin (I like gin too) and with many whiskies (Bourbon, for example). With my friends, we have invented the mix Whisky, Gin and Red Vermouth, and it tastes really good, but it's very hard to stand up after take one.

Persephone - Cocteau Twins