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 (23413)	8/20/2001 4:48:48 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Christopher. X was not serious about the torture and cannibalism and headhunting. It was tasteless joking. X also no longer is a supporter of the death penalty. This was a hard position for her to come to because a personal experience made it a heated, emotional issue for her. But justice is important to her in the conduct of her life whatever her philosophical view of it as a concept, and fairness too she values, and honoring certain principles; and her position on the death penalty evolved accordingly. But last and most basically: The point is not whether brees or anyone else has a right to interpret and construe and conclude that X's past posts mean that she has bad values by their lights. The point is that when an interpretation is made, and a conclusion drawn, it should be thus presented: "This is my opinion of X where values and truth and justice are concerned." It is disreputable to claim that X 'mentioned' that she has a 'distaste' for truth, principle, human values, and such, when it never happened. Don't you get this, really? That it is wrong to try to demonize someone by making people believe they said something when they DIDN'T SAY IT? And disreputable to defend this practice? Ask for a citation of when X said she had a distaste for those things.