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 (41166)	6/20/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Hmmm. Would any facts KNOWN IN 1775 have impelled you to offer your life for the possibility (a dim possibility for quite a while) of a new country separate from Britain? And if so what facts, and how would you have rationally analyzed them to decide that this one of those few causes worth offering your life for? Would any facts have impelled you to stand at the rude bridge that arched the flood? I doubt it; I think you would have laughed at those dumb farmers who had the audacity to contest the might of the redcoats. You know, Chris, an awful lot of people did just that based on what they saw as a bunch of hotheads running wild. I suspect that some of the same people might have been willing to offer their lives if they believed that there was even a possibility of what happened later.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41166)	6/20/1999 6:15:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>Hmmm. Would any facts KNOWN IN 1775 have impelled you to offer your life for the possibility (a dim possibility for quite a while) of a new country separate from Britain? And if so what facts, and how would you have rationally analyzed them to decide that this one of those few causes worth offering your life for? Would any facts have impelled you to stand at the rude bridge that arched the flood? I doubt it; I think you would have laughed at those dumb farmers who had the audacity to contest the might of the redcoats. < No- I would have thought the revolutionary war was a stupid waste of everyone's time. Look at Canada, Australia and New Zealand - they turned out just fine without a war (in some ways better than us). The results which I deem beneficial as a result of the Revolutionary War might have happened anyway as the simple outgrowth of the evolution of colonial government into the present systems we see around the globe. As for the quote about martyrs- being a martyr is VERY different from fighting and possibly dying for a good cause without death being the PRIMARY intent or an obvious outcome- that's the whole point. If you can't see that I give you the definition of martyr: One who VOLUNTARILY suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to or refusing to renounce his religion. I say again, I do not approve of martyrs. I think it is silly. I think suicide is silly too (unless one is terminally ill, in which case I find it rational). Matyrdom and suicide are waste, but I would never stop anyone from them, but it is a waste and I abhor waste. Now- when dying for a good cause the object is NOT to die but to be part of a cause which because it is dangerous might result in death. I can think of no good cause that requires one to step into ABSOLUTE death (i.e. a situation where death is certain)- except maybe for throwing oneself on a grenade to save a group, taking a bullet for the President because it is your job to be a secret serviceman (and even then death is not certain)- I am having trouble thinking of any other GOOD causes (suicide bombers come to mind of course- but they are never a "good" cause imo, and Kamikazes, and lots of other idiotic ways to end your life with a destructive boom, but as you know I don't favor that.)