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 (32101)	10/12/2001 1:12:17 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

LOL my old friend. You were blasting Tim for philosophical inconsistency and you ended up condemning yourself and your own. Let me put it plainly. No God, no ultimate standard. No ultimate standard, no ultimate meaning for "good and evil". Only proximate feelings and personal preferences. As someone else noted; "Some men love their neighbors and some men eat them. Which do you prefer?????" :)))))) Greg

To: Solon who wrote (32101)	10/12/2001 3:30:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

My point was that Twofowler's assertion that he would "call someone an evil person if they habitually and knowingly commit evil", was dismissive of his previous statement that a person committing evil could be a "good" person provided they were "mistaken" How does is one idea dismissive of the other? Imagine two people. One caring and concerned and trying to do good but who is either deluded as to the consequences of his actions or would fit the legal definition of insane (he is "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts." The second is someone who understand the horrible consequences of his acts and has the mental capability to recognize the evil in them, but who doesn't care or cares more about his own desires or ideology or whatever. The second person seems clearly to be an evil person. The first person probably is not. If you would like to describe them differently then you are of course free to do so. You might even convince me that my ideas about this are incorrect but that still would not mean that your implication that they are self contradictory was correct. Tim