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: TimF who wrote (5824)	2/14/2001 3:33:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As for my neighbor's wife having a lover, I would say adultery is wrong, but I would not put it in the category of something that I feel is definitly, extrinsicly and absolutely wrong. Also while I would say it is immoral, I would not consider it a human rights abuse, and it would be a subject for her and her conscience and also her husband and her lover. In all this discussion about absolute truth and absolute rights and absolute moral codes, this is the first time I picked up on a distinction between human rights abuse and other moral violations. Has this been part of what folks have been discussing all along or is this something new. There's a big difference between simple right and wrong and human rights abuses. If all we're talking about when we say absolute, I think that changes the discussion. Are we changing the discussion or did I miss something important? So if the race could only be sustained by rape and slavery, but no one would die because of a lack of rape and slavery (lets say the race would die out because the women didn't want sex or kids and with no new kids the race would die), then it would not be right to rape and enslave people just to insure the survival of the race. If there's no more human race, what's the point of an absolute moral code? Wouldn't it be moot? Karen