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 (11864)	5/3/2002 1:41:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

But, in the end, I can see no real reason to be inhibited about using rats as kamikazes....... I followed the post and agreed with all of it but to not see how it qualified the above conclusion. It would help both of us to use the term "canary" in place of "rats." As I think picking a particularly repulsive creature adds a level of contagious complexity to the argument. The issue is not that they are moral creatures. As you pointed out they are not (cept on the Disney channel). The issue is that we are and that we have been given a roll that assures their well being under our watch. If there is harm to one of them that is targeted becuase of how we will advance our cause against an enemy then there is some issue with our own moral behavior. In this first example, I am clearly convinced of a wrong. That is, you burn the crops, kill the buffalo, or something so that your enemy will suffer the loss and surrender. In this case you have clearly targeted the non-enemy creature (innocent) to cause your enemy who is not directly targeted to suffer. In the second case, (the kamakazi canary) your enemy is direcly targeted so the scenario is altered and I am still in the grey area on this one. In a third scenario, I heard about the use of dolphins planting bombs on the hulls of ships but they actually leave the bomb (magnetic) and swim off. This one is not a grey area for me. It is more like the utilitarian horse example where the animal is not unreasonably put in harms way.