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 (23277)	8/20/2001 12:09:14 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes. X never mentioned a "distaste" for "such things as truth, values, human justice, or principle." To say that she did, and what's more did it repeatedly, is a lie. ("Distaste" in any case is an absurd noun choice.) It would not be a lie to write, "I can not, from my philosophical perspective, imagine truth, values, human justice or principles existing for a moral relativist." It would be dumb, and show an extremely limited imagination, and even more remarkably limited social circle, but still, it would not be a lie. It is a lie to say that a moral relativist has "mentioned" having a "distaste" for things she has never "mentioned" having a "distaste" for -- things "such as truth, justice, human values or principles." Posting that someone has "mentioned" something repeatedly is attributing to them, as their statement of their position, your conclusion. This is dishonest. It is also a simple concept. It is my impression that you aren't actually missing this simple point, but, uncomfortable with what your cohorts have revealed about themselves, are merely trying helpfully to assist in the obfuscation.