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: E who wrote (23440)	8/20/2001 4:52:12 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

Being touted as an alternative to "The War on Drugs." "A $4.2 million grant will let University of Colorado researchers buy a brain scanning machine that could determine whether a brain abnormality makes some people more prone to addiction. I don't buy it. There is proneness for all kinds of reasons. There is also an absense of responsibility, by addicts.

To: E who wrote (23440)	8/20/2001 6:27:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If your position is now that claiming, on the basis that she made tasteless jokes about eating the neighbors or on the basis that she is a self-described moral relativist, claiming that she said things she didn't, demonizing things, is okay, then you have joined the battle. Nope. That's not my position. My position, which I am disappointed is not clear even yet, is this. Purely and simply. X has made statements on SI which if read as a truthful statement of her beliefs would reasonably support as one possible conclusion -- not the only one, not necessarily the "right" one, but one possible -- that she holds, or at least at one time pretended that she held, the beliefs that brees attributed to her. So. I hope this will all be very clear. Though I don't hold out much home that somebody won't misinterpret it. Sigh. My position is NOT that brees was right about X. My position is ONLY that brees has a colorable argument for the validity of his position. Not necessarily a winning argument. But a colorable argument. My position is that IF your position is that there are NO posts that X ever made that would support brees's position, you are incorrect. Now, a few other statements. Do I believe personally that X is substantially lacking in her appreciation for human values? No. Do I believe personally that X is substantially lacking in a sense of justice? No. Have I seen with mine own eyes X post what I considered to be some extremely nasty and vicious things to and about other people? Yes. Do I believe X meant it when she said she "[reveled] in meanness"? I think at the time, yes, she did, at least in part. I think at the very least she reveled in the game of acting as a mean person. Was it all just in fun? Frankly, I don't know. Would I, in a calm, rational moment after sufficient time for consideration, write exactly the same things about X as I did in the rapid-fire exchange of a flame war? I don't think so. I hope not. Do I agree with brees's statements about X? Generally, no. I do, though, have a nagging doubt that a person who really is as sweet and nice as some people who say (see earlier caveat) they have met her claim her to be could or would have said as many such mean and nasty things as she did. I don't think somebody could sustain that persona for that length of time that successfully if there weren't a certain amount of the true X in it. But I have never met X in person, that I know of. I know her only by the words she chooses to put on CRT, and to a much lesser extent the words others put on CRT about her. If I ever met her in person, I have no idea what I would think about her, though she and I do in fact have a lot in common we could talk about. Now. I do hope that's all clear.