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 (13384)	5/10/2001 4:49:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

By definition, irresponsibility is failing to do what you should, to discharge your responsibilities, including your responsibility to yourself. Thus, it is immoral to be irresponsible, to a greater or lesser degree. Your first statement doesn't even begin to prove your second statement. You can't just stick a "thus" between them and make it so. If you don't discharge your responsibilities to others, that could be immoral, like if ignored your child's illness and didn't get needed medical treatment for him. If you promise your car pool that you'll pick up the car pool pass this month and then forget, that's irresponsible but not immoral. Irresponsible isn't necessarily immoral. I would also disagree with you that failing to be responsible to yourself can be immoral. I'm not even sure it's irresponsible. Enough. Karen