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.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (8283)	7/10/2000 3:39:21 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

The tone of intolerance toward anyone or anything religious sings through rather clearly Tazio. But what I find most interesting is the silence from others on this thread to call it to your attention. I've noticed that "silent" acceptance of religious "hate speech" quite a bit around SI. Change the name "christians", or "religious people" to black, jew, pole, homosexual, woman, or anything else, and the "silent acceptance" would evaporate like a cloud on a hot sunny day. Michael

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (8283)	7/10/2000 3:41:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Tazio, you've been in the vino again. How could you find fault with this statement. "Teaching people to be good is wonderful." We're talking Mom and Apple Pie here. We should have an ethical basis for our society--some values we accept, follow, teach, and expect others to follow. For example: We don't take things that don't belong to us. We don't hurt other creatures. We don't shave strokes off our golf score. We don't stab our colleagues in the back. If we back our car over the neighbor's flower bed, we repair it. We don't break confidences. We don't break the law, except when we do so as a protest, in which case we accept our punishment graciously and don't whine. Surely we don't disagree on that! My point was that if religion stuck to just teaching people to be good, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although there are other institutions that could fill that societal role just as well if not better. Otherwise, I don't disagree with anything you say, although I have reservations about the tone with which you say it. Karen

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (8283)	7/10/2000 4:04:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Perhaps a better way to put it would be to say "Teaching people to be empathetic and not to maim or kill or physically harm any fellow human being (except in self defense) is a useful and socially expedient thing to do". I think if we START there, and DO that we will have done a tremendous amount. You can do it if you are religious and you can do that if you aren't. I suppose we could follow that up with teaching people not to assault each other in non-physical ways too. But that's a bit more iffy- and it will take a good long time to teach people to be less physically aggressive.