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 (45042)	3/1/2002 1:50:12 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

Yeah. And you know what they are.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

To: The Philosopher who wrote (45042)	3/1/2002 3:35:28 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is not situational ethics, because the underlying principles of morality do not change. It is traditional ethics, actually. The act is not exactly the same in each instance, insofar as it may vary in qualities of intentionality or the wrong inflicted, for example. It is the kind of distinction that is made between murder and manslaughter, or between murder one and murder two. It is the kind of distinction that the judge uses when he cites lack of remorse as a reason to impose a harsher sentence, or a willingness to make restitution as a reason to be lenient. Sometimes, the particulars of a case will determine if there is actual guilt or innocence, sometimes it will determine the degree of punishment deserved, or the degree of praise or reward. I am not sure why a lawyer should have difficulty with understanding that........

To: The Philosopher who wrote (45042)	3/1/2002 10:17:08 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree with you C Husky on this one. <<Aren't there any acts that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong without any mitigating or aggravating factors?>>.. Yes there are..HIGH LEVEL goes without saying.But EVEN at a low level. Like discourse on SI.. There are things that are WRONG, IMO, like disparaging people for their views.. attacking them in a MOST PERSONAL way in the crudest, obscene ways .. With words or BY digging up gross pictures, etc.. And that's why I bring those things up once in awhile.. I DON'T like to do it, but I hate to see a continual assault on DECENCY.. Whether it is ON local SI posters or national figures, including past first ladies. Because I know they will attack me...And they DO with the MOST sophmoric insults. But that's Okay.. But EVEN if it stops them for awhile..Like it has.. That's fine.. (BTW, it probably will start again, just to show me, <g>.) Because lately, I haven't seen THE gross pictures, read many gross descriptions including physical and sexual.. etc.. of SI posters or national figures.. And then lately I have responded, to these individuals, with the same types of gross insults, just to show them I can.. Again I DON'T like to do it.. But, I do, to show them, It is SO EASY, the easy way out.. To ATTACK the PERSON, instead of the idea, when they themselves do not have an answer. And another thing I don't like ARE the ENABLERS, and you, if you care for a Coug's opinion or not, <vbG>, I am glad to say, ARE NOT ONE of them.. (A high opinion from a Coug,,just kidding, VBG) The ones, I mean, that go along to get along for whatever reason.. To sell out.. And some of these, frankly, I am surprised at, of who they are.. Anyway, Have a good weekend, And I will expect to be attack for this post.. But if they do, So be it, Because it will be an attack on the DEFENSE of DECENCY. Department of DOD.. DODOD.. c