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: Rambi who wrote (5626)	2/13/2001 4:35:39 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Well her words were... >>ROFL I don't have a problem with slavery in a society that wants to have it. I don't like it personally- but societies certainly have the ability to have slavery if it works<< So if she doesn't LIKE it, but has no problem with it, then you would have to question upon what basis she "doesn't like it" or upon what basis she "has no problem with it." I thought Chris quite correctly made the point that the SLAVE would have a problem with it. Therefore a rational assumption could be made that the reason she has no problem with it is that she sees views it through the lens of the slaver. I still have not excluded the possibility that she would prefer being a slavee, though.

To: Rambi who wrote (5626)	2/13/2001 5:01:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought she said that she didn't like slavery- period, that some societies might consider it moral if it were an"aceepted" practice. The actual statement from her post was: "I don't have a problem with slavery in a society that wants to have it." She and I simply differ fundamentally on that I have a problem with slavery in any society period. Certain things are not okay even if both parties, at least on the surface, agree to them. (Child abuse, for example. Some children become so accustomed to abuse that they accept as the norm of life. That doesn't make it right. X can believe what she wants, but I will NEVER believe that it is moral for a parent to burn a one year child with a cigarette over half its body even if the whole society thinks it is.) Of course, X didn't define how a society decides it wants to have slavery, particularly whether the slaves have any say in the decision. I asked that question here several times, but so far nobody who espouses that principle has answered. Wonder why. <g> During the 1960s, when I was active in the civil rights movement, Southern society as a whole certainly accepted segregation. That was the accepted moral code. Did that make it morally right for that society in that day and age? X would presumably say yes. I said no, and was willing to put my body on the line to say so.

To: Rambi who wrote (5626)	2/13/2001 6:05:05 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

ROFL for the people who missed my impassioned arguments against slave LABOR in other countries, as well as child slaves and slaves of ALL kinds- I will reiterate- my personal code of ethics is very high. I want to treat all people with the dignity and respect I wish to receive- and I do not wish to be any more of a slave than I already am- to my three children. The fact that morality is NOT bounded in anything concrete makes me MORE careful about what I do to other people, not less. I am sure there are weak people out there who would take advantage of such a system- just as their are weak Christians who exploit THAT system. I can only say that I seem to be considered an extremely fine person by all my many friends and acquaintances. I am universally loved by the children I teach, and seem to be highly respected. While people might not understand my philosophy- I am known by the FRUITS of that philosophy.