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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (42631)	1/25/2002 1:57:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Your fixed viewpoint is clearly revealed by this proposition:" "The atomic bombs, far from being the 'controlling' factor, caused no significant reorientation of attitudes, no manifest change in point of view." Wasn't that a quotation from a RAND report, Christopher? Why do you blame me for the facts? Why don't you just accept the facts? The facts do you no harm, Dithers. And that is what you just cannot seem to wrap your brain around. Being narrow minded and rigid is neither a recipe for understanding, nor growth. But if you wish to continue on this path, then please be my guest. "Apply this logic to the man waving a gun in a shopping mall who is shot dead by the police, where the gun is later found to have been empty." It has NOTHING to do with that. Your remark is absolutely unrelated and is obviously designed for those without the wit to compute. Analogies are the the matchbook of those who have lost arguments and would burn up all the work in a scorched earth policy of revenge. Moral decisions are made on moral principles. They are never made in an absolute context. Your suggestion that decisions may never be moral or immoral because people do not time travel is an absurd red herring. "Many decisions, perhaps most, are seen in a different light, long after the fact. This tells us absolutely nothing about the reasonableness of the decisions at the time they were made." This comment proves that you knew of your absurdity even as you made it! You imply that decisions can have a "reasonableness" at the time; you assert this as a viable presumption. You cannot have it both ways. So let us pretend that the actions of people may be judged as to reasonableness--even when neither the actors nor the judges have the luxury of an absolute and omniscient context! This assumption would probably support the otherwise meaningless activity of having an opinion! THINK about it! I think what you are really against is the fact that much of the world (and of the country) differs with your opinion. Even though I think your opinion is much less fact based than these, I still give you your right to it. This is not the opinion I have continually challenged in you. I have challenged your assertion that ONLY your opinion has a right to be considered, and that I and others who believe the bombing was ill considered, have no right to our well researched opinions. And I have challenged your ongoing snide comments that all contrary opinions to yours (at least if they are "voiced" by me), must be rigorously attacked and insulted...without basis. How pitiful is that?? I mean, Dithers: how arrogant and totalitarian can you get? Have you ever heard of human rights??