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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (4194)	3/22/2002 4:30:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

There is actually a term for the kind of argument one makes that something is better to believe. It is a "moral argument". It is a guide to judgement. The precept about proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is based on a moral argument, that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to convict the innocent, within an unavoidable residuum of error. A corollary, when the moral argument is not articulated formally, is to refer to belief as "satisfying one's sense of the fitness of things". That is a fairly neutral formulation, and will suffice as an example. I'm sorry, I can't relate this paragraph to the post upon which you were commenting. Is this about neediness? A bit too subtle, perhaps. some people are superstitious, and that might elide into religious belief. If that is all you are saying Er, I think so. Thou shalt avoid gratuitous slams, and take some care to treat with respect, or at least some forbearance, what is sacred to others. Yech! Ain't nothing sacred. I reserve the right to discuss things other people perceive as sacred. I'm prepared to do so in a constructive way, without 'tude, but I recognize nothing as sacred. In return, I expect the religious to recognize that what they consider sacred is their POV only and to lose the sacred chips on their shoulders. Karen