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 (12735)	5/1/2001 3:38:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think Solon was saying that she is responsible for the babies born to people that she (or her order) convinced not to use birth control, not for all people in India or elsewhere who failed to user birth control. But looking at your analogy I would not say that someone who convinced you to buy ADCT above 40 isn't really responsible for your losses. You are even if you would not have bought ADCT if you had not read their posts. Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12735)	5/1/2001 4:25:42 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's see now. Your position, as I hear it, is that MT is responsible for all the babies born as a result of people who didn't use birth control. Let me disabuse you of your misunderstanding of my position: Message 15722754 I do not know where you got your erroneous understanding from--as I have been careful to say only what I said--and I have never said anything remotely resembling such nonsense. If you read my posts, you will see that I only made the obvious points--that MT's POLICIES are acknowledged by apologists and detractors alike, as having had an effect upon the number of people who used birth control, and the number of people who chose abortions. Your speech about responsibility is clearly intended for a different courtroom--perhaps across the hall. People know where I stand on personal responsibility, so your invention of a false position for me--well this would only have fooled the odd idiot--and perhaps the judge. MT is responsible only for her actions, and perhaps (in a legal sense) for the actions of her agents. Whether or not her actions were lawful in some instances where there was no consent to treatment because of diminished capacity--well, we have not looked at that issue--and we do not have enough reliable information to look at it, in my opinion. The examples you gave in order to buttress your mischievous allegations of my position, certainly cut a few inches from your stature. Now you will need heel lifts. Be careful when you are faking obtuseness. Sometimes one becomes what one pretends...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12735)	5/1/2001 5:07:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Christopher, this whole thing about Mother Teresa is mired in inanity. The standard is simple: we deduct "points" from an historical figure if she behaves in a manner that we think is obviously wrong, and without significant excuse. In matters of greater controversy, where the correct position is less obvious, or when circumstances might provide greater excuse, we are less harsh, or exonerate her. The Nazis had to be evil or insane to kill millions of people, many of them horribly, through forced labor and starvation, due to a racial theory of dubious provenance. Mother Teresa may have been misguided, but counseling against birth control was not in the same league. Abstinence is not impossible, and coition is not the only way of experiencing carnal affection. In her mind, artificial means of birth control were not necessary to reduce the number of births. In fact, the Billings method, an adaptation of the Rhythm Method that is more efficient, was embraced by the Church, allowing one to take advantage of infertile periods in the cycle, without long bouts of abstinence. In general, it seems to us more trouble than it is worth, but it is not the same, by any means, as willing the overpopulation of India. Thus, she was not obviously doing harm, or even expecting more than carnal man could manage. In that, again, she may have overestimated the discipline of the average man (or woman, for that matter), but since our admonitions against teens rushing into things depend on confidence that coitus is not an inevitable result of sexual excitement, that is debatable. We generally give Washington a break for being a slaveholder, given his time, and pat him on the back for being benevolent, and freeing his slaves (by testament) upon Martha's death. In the same way, it is a mitigating circumstance that Mother Teresa was a nun from Eastern Europe, and that she spent her life in a ministry in Calcutta, far from debates about the Faith. Since the same Faith that motivated her to carry beggars from the street and wash them, give them bedding, and feed them spoke against birth control, what should one expect, it was all of a piece. In sum, any honest mind should be able to view with some indulgence, if not complete approval, those elements of her mission which they may find dubious, and admire the heroic determination and compassion with which she prosecuted most tasks.......