Rigged to this primeval and generic idea slips the momentous question of guilt. Namely, all value judgment accompanied inevitably another parallel trial that makes reference to capacity. Explain me, humans are projecting value judgments based on the condition that we attach to people to do good or bad faith. If you are not convinced, visit translation software. Put another way, me I questioned if humans will not we wrong to ask the modes of life or living together in the way that we do. That is, humans against humans, or towards humans, delimiting among many other things, justice between good and bad, as if everything is there, UNCLOS on the ground nearby, prosaic, extending tie men to other men. I thought in the immensity of the night, what the hell do we do men?, of who intend to release, to whom we are subject? It may be that in the millions of years since the man put the foot on the ground there has been a truly revolutionary proposal.
We carry thousands of years between us, killing us in endless wars that we only diminish, and I thought at that time to give mankind the award of collective innocence. I also thought we only do what we can, or what the circumstances allow us to achieve. That are born without reason, in that nobody explains to what we live, without a purpose, that we must learn to live with the idea of death, so that continued, a number of things that far from me seem indulgent me more approaching the idea of Justice objective. Yes, I understand that this viewpoint is not original, and that you have enough seasoning to scandalise according to which social sectors, but thought that if one decides not to disseminate certain ideas as something well as revolutionary, at the end always end up in a bottomless pit. I thought in the mentally retarded, and I was clear conviction, the same concept of innocence.