Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41130)	6/20/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

You are not very good with qualifiers are you? WTF do you think a "very good reason" is? I am a strong believer in stopping aggressor nations. I would not have supported the appeasement of Hitler. I do this out of logical self preservation, since I do not want my nation to be agressed on. It is my feeling that nations can be as evil as they want as long as they stay within their own boundaries- it is the responsibility of their citizens to change their government (although these changes can cause conflicts that are morally ambiguous- like our own Revolutionary War and the Civil War ). I do not believe that outsiders interfering in civil wars is usually beneficial or a coast effective use of moral capital. Under my system of reasoning WWII was a war which justified our interference. The Revolutionary War is totally different morally (although it is typical you draw no distinction- waive those colors, try to think of "good" wars so you can swing your flag around) and was a war the citizens of this country had every right to fight, because citizens within a country have the right ot do anything they want as long as they do not invade other nations (under my reasoning on geo-politcal morality)- but as there was really no "agressor" (save for the colonists, who were English- so this was really analogous with a civil war) I find the war to have been morally ambiguous like most civil wars in terms of which side was "moral" or "correct". The results have been interesting, but I do not believe the means justify the ends- one can approve some pretty awful things using THAT rational, and we could easily have become a monarchy. But then I am not a zealot for anything- while it clearly comes easily to you. If you cannot see both sides of the Revolutionary War, and understand the ambiguities inherent in colonialism and civil war then I have nothing but pity for you.