SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Win Smith who wrote (6223)2/19/2001 12:04:56 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I haven't gotten one pro-Lifer to give me their opinion about the suffering soldier example. None will step forward and say they would end the suffering of a fatally wounded person who requests an end to their pain. I've run this by other people and universally they have all said they think it is only moral to end the suffering of the fatally wounded soldier that asks you to kill him. Does that mean I wait with glee for the opportunity to perform this act of compassion? No. I hope I don't have to do that.



To: Win Smith who wrote (6223)2/19/2001 1:39:37 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 82486
 
Jeez, Tim, are you going for the Greg McRitchie "I decide what's logical and what isn't" prize today?

What about my post makes you ask that question? A statement or argument made by person X can be correct, incorrect, or it could be in a grey area where the question is not so simple. This does not change if X is a hypocrite.

If a person acts inconsistently with their beliefs that might show a defect in the person's character but that doesn't mean the belief is wrong. I don't think the good authority or reputation of a person making an argument is proof that they are right. Similarly inconsistencies or defects in the character of a person making an argument do not prove that their ideas are wrong. The argument is to an extent independent of the arguer.

Tim