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 (32299)	10/12/2001 9:45:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Solon I was giving you my specific and exact opinion on this. I was in no way being evasive. To state it another way. The actions and the person are seperate things. The person is responsible for his actions, but the actions can be evil without the person being evil. I could add to this but I have allready been over it several times. I don't see how stating my opinion can be evasive. If it is imprecise I am willing to answer any specific question if you think it would be productive. It is not necessary for you to speak for me. Such is an absolutist trait. I didn't speek for you I asked about what you might say, clearly stating "would you then respond", rather then "you said" or "you would then respond". "Murder" is a word which was invented and which assumes a value. We are talking about values, I find it hard to see how we would do that without using words that deal with values. I could instead of using the word murder, type a phrase, or maybe a whole paragraph to try and be more specific about what I am talking about. Maybe "deliberate agressive killing of innocent people" with agressive includeing in this context the idea of being unconnected with defense but rather involving the initiation of force. Some people would say there are times when that is morally right. I would not. Philosophers have tried for centuries to find absolutist morals which are universal. They ought to be predominant (if morality is God-derived), but they are non-existent. 1 - If morality is God derived that doesn't mean we don't have free will to go against it or even disbelieve it. 2 - I never specifically said morality was God derived. 3 - "Non-existent" ?!? Not universally agreed apon sure but there are plenty of moral ideas people consider absolute. Tim