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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (134876)	4/2/2001 9:27:32 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Thanks for the well thought out argument. I do believe in consequences. If you call that 'wrath', so be it. These consequences might not happen on Earth, however; none of us know for sure until it't too late. In teaching ethics, you need to be clear about not only the difference between right and wrong, but the consequences of "wrong" behavior. Those consequences could well be apt punishment under our laws, or consequences in the afterlife. In the context of this discussion, the issue is: how should we react to ethics that we disagree with? Especially if those ethics are in a societal gray area such as this? Should we try gentle (or strong) persuasion? Should we change laws, and then punish those who continue to exhibit this behavior? Should we call them names, and verbally abuse them to stop such behavior? Again, in the context of this discussion, should we get angry with homosexuals, and punish them as a surrogate for God's wrath? And what if we are wrong? Did you see the Joan of Arc Messenger of God movie? Great ethical twist, if a little heavy handed. A good message to those of us, myself included, who presume we know the will of God.