You are on page 1of 2

Point and counter-point

The issue is "would a candidate, subjected to some form of "passage


rites" be a better mason.

The argument as I expressed could be argued two ways...both
extreme...both mutually exclusive ...but neither one could guarantee
the outcome.

Heres a link to ponder on: http://hazing.cornell.edu/cms/hazing/issues/research.cfm


Your zeal for our institution, the progress you have made in its mysteries
(http://www.pagrandlodge.org/district3/586/pdf/ritual/PA_Masonic_Ritual_Charge_at_Raising.pdf)
A term that has to be qualifiedand accepted with the values of the Masonshow does one manifest
zeal for the institution?

Terms that requires definition: Hazing (PMA itself had an issue resolving
thisand settled with maltreatment)

On the issue: why is it that during my time.. I was not subjected to
improper acts and I turned out to be what I am already --- for me is Non
Sequitir (it does not follow). Simply because the character, morals, and all
other dispositions are already there and we call them individual
differences as adults.

Secondly, cultures and subcultures (form or) change over time and environment. Parents by virtue of
been there, done that experience, create an environment to guide their children in the hope that If I
subject them to these they will turn out to be thisbecause I went through it or I have learned this


I have directly observed (from my perspective), how cadets both from pma and other sourcessubjected
to a humbling process have different results in character. But both agree that it filters less qualified
peoplebut with a big assumption. They were under a squad of trainers not hazers. The difference is
in the intentregulated by actions of the filters.

Regardless of source of commission I have learned that given the right conditions we will have a
statistically normal distribution of standard results

Hence it becomes now a solution in the middle. Moderation in implementation.
Let us define these acts which are clearly stupid or abusive and which does not define us as better
men.
Thus leave the acts undefined as tolerable or accepted with caution.
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared
rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since
love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to
be feared than loved.
He ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a
temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him
incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.
The prince who relies upon their words, without having otherwise provided for his security, is
ruined; for friendships that are won by awards, and not by greatness and nobility of soul, although
deserved, yet are not real, and cannot be depended upon in time of adversity.
(http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli)


My last stand :

You might also like