Politics for Pros- moderated 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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (67504)	9/6/2004 4:43:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 793955

It's a matter of your army's priorities. This is a perfect example of the problem in trying to discuss the issue. You're inside the box and I'm outside and ne'er the twain shall meet. To look at terrorism from the other side, you have to put yourself in the position of the underdog facing a last resort scenario. Things are so grave that there IS NO army left. It's been defeated. There are no alternatives. The bad guys are occupying your house, my house, and the White House. If you continue to assume there's an army, then you're not putting yourself in a position desperate enough to consider giving up your cushy-life scruples and consider terrorism. There is always some alternative, conventional or unconventional. You have to put yourself in a position where there is no alternative but to die or worse in a losing cause. Only then can you assert that you would maintain those scruples. It's easy for me to say I would never steal something. I can buy anything I want. To test my moral premise I have to be in a situation of no alternative--steal or starve. Only then do that can I know if I would never steal. Only when there question is extistential and there is no alternative.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next