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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (5622)	2/13/2001 3:55:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

They are acting in opposition to their stated belief system. It's called hypocrisy. I'm glad to see you noticed that, too. There's an awful lot of it going around and no race, religion, gender, nationality, political affiliation, etc. is universally immune to it. Hypocrisy is bad enough. The self-righteous notion that only the other guys exhibit it is dishonest. We should not blame all members of a group for the shortcomings or excesses of a minority of the group, although I think it's appropriate that the group at large to try to either get its outliers into the fold or cut them out of the herd. When pressed, they will start to argue about what the meaning of is is. In your previous post you were criticizing the lefties. In this one it's the atheists and/or the seculars. I'm sure you are aware that there are Christians and seculars throughout the political spectrum. And that the guy who parsed the word "is" is a moderate-to-left Christian. All lefties aren't secular and all seculars aren't lefites. I'm not sure who is targeted here. On the other hand, those who take the position that there is no ultimate morality because there is no God, are stuck in the unenviable position of being unable to denounce anything I don't think that this is accurate. Just because a philosophy or moral system or whatever is not anchored by a deity but by some human construct doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't anchored and that there's no value or moral judgment to be made. What may be confusing is, in a secular system, it may be necessary to distinguish between the foundational relativity of the general system and local criteria for right or wrong. In a religious system, they're irrevocably tied together because they're packaged by the deity. Much easier to follow (follow as in understand). Karen

To: Greg or e who wrote (5622)	2/13/2001 6:51:42 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

On the other hand, those who take the position that there is no ultimate morality because there is no God, are stuck in the unenviable position of being unable to denounce anything, no matter how heinous, because to do so, would repudiate their own philosophical position. How about there is ultimate morality because ultimately there is man? We all have a pretty good idea of what moral and ethical mean, and that also holds regardless of religion. That statement implies that Buddhists are not moral because there is no God in Buddhism. Give me a break.

To: Greg or e who wrote (5622)	2/13/2001 7:26:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

On the other hand, those who take the position that there is no ultimate morality because there is no God, are stuck in the unenviable position of being unable to denounce anything, no matter how heinous, because to do so, would repudiate their own philosophical position. How about there is ultimate morality because ultimately there is man? Or morality can be derived by reason and is long-term personal and social self-interest? We all have a pretty good idea of what moral and ethical mean, and that also holds regardless of religion. That statement implies that Buddhists are not moral because there is no God in Buddhism. Give me a break. And I ended up with a double post because of editing- -the unedited and edited versions!