THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (2516)	3/13/2002 5:45:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 21057

Both "treachery" and "evil" imply that the perp is outside of conventional human ethics in there approach. I think we're talking about two different things. As you describe both treachery and evil, they're about motivations that are particularly black-hearted. They're just two slightly different subsets of immorality. I'm trying to distinguish between morality and self interest. I was using the word, treacherous, not in terms of the motivations of the perp but as a more dramatic synonym for dangerous. Like treacherous waters or treacherous path. Treacherous and perilous are two words that are less common and, therefore, more vivid than just plain dangerous. Al Qaeda and Saddam or Korea or whoever are bent on actions that are perilous to the stability and prosperity of the world, that are imperiling our world. That's a different view than the motivations or morality of those who engage in those actions. The question is whether we frame terrorism as evil or perilous. Obviously, it's both, but it matters how we portray it because that defines our motivations in combating it. Karen

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next