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: Neocon who wrote (11672)	4/17/2001 12:42:08 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since I know what I meant and you didn't know what I meant, I think your interpretation is not "fair". It is your subjective reading of what I said which is totally out of kilter with what I meant. I don't see that fairness actually has anything to do with it, really. And yet you do. Fairness? What point does fairness have? How could you be fair to ideas that are obviously alien to you? The whole idea that you think you could be fair to ideas that do not sit well with your belief system makes me think there is little hope discussing this. You are trying for the unattainable. Don't try to be "fair"- no human ever was. Although I guess plenty think they are. Which can be a problem. There many be an objective reality, we don't know what it is. To infer from that that there is a huge gap between what we think is reality and what reality is, already assumes you can guess the nature of reality is different from what we sense that it is. You have made the leap, added an extra step. I'm not doing that Neo. I don't know what objective reality is (if it exists) and so I can't know whether it meshes with most peoples experience of subjective reality, or with anybody's experience of subjective reality, or with no one's experience of subjective reality.