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: Solon who wrote (15821)	6/6/2001 4:46:08 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a difference between advocating something and describing what took place. You are reading something into the text that isn't there. Your just trying to weasel out of answering the question, which you continue to beg. All the witch trials and the crusades and the inquisitions, were all WRONG, I can say that, and it means something. When you say it you're just blowing smoke out your nose. Wrong compared to what? <>"how many reasonable and compassionate people would consider it permissible?" Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? Why are reason and compassion requisite? Is it not reasonable that a pedophile who wishes to abuse a child would arrange to do so while managing to avoid the consequences of discovery?<> "You forgot to include my answer which was that reasonable and compassionate people do not harm others. Therefore, your worrying of the question is feckless." No, you don't like the question, and You have failed to establish reason and compassion as a basis for doing anything harmful or not. I already showed that many reasonable people do great harm, and compassion is just an emotion if it has no objective foundation. ‘Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal' Your view of a Godless universe is part of your premise and therefore cannot be dismissed as having no effect on your conclusion about ultimate meaning and purpose, especially with respect to this issue of ultimate or objective morality. How does that poem go.... Nature, red of tooth and claw, and was it de Sade, that said "What is, is right" Very reasonable given his assumptions. In that case Pedophilia is, therefore Pedophilia is right. Is there a problem with his logic?