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: Lane3 who wrote (20591)	8/4/2001 9:02:01 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The Magnanimous Man According to Aristotle, a Magnanimous Man lives by the following ideals: 1) Honor: The Magnanimous Man is chiefly concerned with honors and dishonors. He is moderately pleased with honors conferred on him by good men because he reckons that to be his due (or rather less than his due because no honor can be worthy or perfect virtue - yet he accepts such honors because people have nothing greater to give him). But he utterly despises honors from lightweight people that are given for trivial reasons, because he deserves better than that. He despises dishonors too, because in his case they cannot be just. Power and wealth are only desirable to him for the sake of honor. Even honor is a little thing to him, so everything else must be of even less importance. Consequently people think magnanimous men look down on everybody else. 2) Courage: The Magnanimous Man does not run into trivial dangers but he will face great dangers. In danger he has no thought for his own life because he knows that there are conditions in which life is not worth having. 3) Obligations & Bearing Towards Others: He is the kind of man that does things for other people but is ashamed to have things done for him because it puts him in an inferior position. Thus he tends to return an even greater favor than the first, so that he not only repays but puts the other person in a position of obligation to him. The Magnanimous Man asks for nothing but gives help readily. He stands on his dignity with high-class people but is relaxed with those of the middle class, because it is not only easy but bad mannered to be superior with inferior people. It is as bad as a strong person bullying a weak person. But it is a difficult and stately thing to be superior with superior people. 4) Frankness: Also, he loves and hates openly because it is cowardly to hide your feelings or to care less for truth than for what people will think. He does not care what he says because all people are beneath him, and he always speaks the truth. He admires nothing because nothing to him is great. He never gossips or talks about himself or other people because he would prefer to hear neither good of himself nor bad of other people. lghs.net

To: Lane3 who wrote (20591)	8/4/2001 11:51:46 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 82486

I have argued it here recently in the case of Christians, who are a totally dominant religion in our countries, and who can easily afford to allow a little sunlight for those of other religions. Read your constitution, it does not discriminate against any religion and certainly cannot even be called a Christian country. A famous American once said "equal rights for all special rights for none." Those other groups don't want equal status they want special status. An aristocracy of victims that receive handouts via the Noblesse Oblige of the State. In Canada certain minority groups have what I call "Special Victim Status" they don't pay any form of taxes, free education and free medical which is good for them because they have the highest per capita birth rate and no incentive to stop because they get paid child support. I often wonder what the end result will be.

To: Lane3 who wrote (20591)	8/6/2001 10:56:40 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I have argued it here in the case of the US treatment of its allies, whom the US could easily send to oblivion, but could instead opt to treat as respected partners. I understand you earlier point about diplomatic protocol and agree with most of your post including the point quoted above, but you don't let "respected partners" make all the decisions for you. This is true whether your are the dominant partner, an equal, or a less powerful member of the partnership. Deciding to follow a different path on some issues that your partner is not rubbing your partner's nose in the fact that you are more powerful. In many ways on these issues (Kyoto and missile defense) we have gone out of our way to give the less powerful some sense of dignity. If the Bush didn't care about the opinions of Western Europe or Russia at all then we could have already pulled out of the ABM treaty, and just tell the Western European countries that we will not limit or CO2 production at all rather then say we can't agree with this treaty but we will come up with an alternative and see if it meets your approval. If we have not been patient or diplomatic enough in a particular statement or conference then perhaps it is slightly tacky, but deciding that the US is going to make the decisions for the US is not. I'm all for talking about things with our allies before making major decisions that might effect them but not for having them making the decisions for us. Tim