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: The Philosopher who wrote (12406)	4/25/2001 11:07:54 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Second part, not sure I understand. If what you mean is that the consequences of my shooting you and the consequences of my kissing you are not equal in the amount of pleasure or pain the inflict or engender, how can that be disputed? Am I understanding correctly so far? NO. If I am to go by your example, your comprehension of the import of my statement is somewhat lacking. The consequences of your either shooting me or kissing me would be indistinguishable, one from another; so let me try again. "the consequences of actions are not equal in the amount of pleasure or pain they inflict or engender." I agree this is fairly obvious. It is an old habit of mine to list all the premises of an argument so that the missing premises are not filled in by the inventions of others. As a lawyer, you should understand clearly how that works. ;) In terms of MT, I think there are points that can be made from both sides. However, I think it is important not to let motive or vows, etc. dictate our assessment of the results. I don't want to mix two arguments. Your comments on her relationship to her vows were appropriate as far as they relate to her rights to exist and to think independently. They do not, however, constitute a justification for an override of the rights of others, nor for an abuse of accepted social standards--IF this was what she did. I do not know what it is she did. I do note that much of what Hitchin stated is documented separately as being accurate (The donation from that criminal, the support of dictators, the attempt to influence the court, etc.). I don't know if ALL of what Hitchins says is or is not reasonably accurate. All I know is that, I have not yet found evidence to the contrary, and I have noted much that is on the public record. On that basis alone, I am certainly not prepared at this stage, to dismiss anything that he has alledged. In any case, I accept as fact that good motives do not guarantee positive consequences. Nor do I think (from what I have heard of MT's direct quotes a sregards her beliefs), that she would deliberately dilute her beliefs to conform to secular expectations. If suffering was Jesus kissing you--why in Hell would anyone believing in the Holiness of Jesus, or the infinitely more blessed afterlife, deny that--or attempt to dilute it-especially in the case of those on their death bed, and with only a small amount of time left to kiss Jesus before they achieve infinite joy??