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: jpmac who wrote (52132)	8/19/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Actually, jpmac, my original intent in posing the questions was to determine if people here thought extreme measures were appropriate to preserve a species. I suspect many do. Since endangered species laws impose sometimes hideous costs -- I wondered if people who favor that sort of thing would favor "paying the price" for intervening at the most fundamental level in order to continue the human race. The women who responded seemed to say, "NO WAY JOSE." Not a PC subject, even for enlightened and free thinking minds on the feelings thread. In fact, the women who responded seemed unwilling (incapable) of seeing the hypothetical situation in any but strictly personal terms. "Rape," it seems is never to be mentioned in any context other than black and white (this odd, in a way, coming from the sex that generally favors shades of grey). Why, I wonder, do we allow so much more latitude in judging the nature of killing. If I deliberately kill you to defend myself, my family or a stranger that's self defense -- I not only don't go to the slammer, I might get my picture taken with the mayor or something. I wish you wouldn't think me wishy washy when it comes to rape. Killing someone who subjected my daughter to such would pose no personal or moral dilemma for me.