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: Neocon who wrote (49492)	6/7/2002 5:03:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

How can we know what is likely to help society? We can guess, but many people who do, and who do so dogmatically, are wrong.

To: Neocon who wrote (49492)	6/7/2002 5:07:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

People make of it what they want. Pearls before swine and all...my mistake. A sincere effort to find the obvious goodness that was intended would, I hope, offer results similar to your "interpretation." I like what you said. I would welcome inquiry and discussion. However, the other responses had obvious ill intent and are not deserving of attention. It was predictable, but I like to open the door a crack once in a while just to see if the air has freshened any.

To: Neocon who wrote (49492)	6/7/2002 5:14:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For those who have a zero-sum mindset about life, giving to others is taking from oneself. So they would necessarily reject your view. Of course, not all of life is zero sum. Knowledge isn't, for example. But some of life is. Ownership of real estate is zero sum. Either I own my house and have the exclusive right to possess it, or I don't. If you want to live there, I have to lose my exclusive right of possession, and either share it or give it to you. Sole possessory ownership of my house is a zero sum game. We cannot all be wealthy; the world can't support it. I enjoy my Ford F-150, and am not willing to give it up without a fight. But I can't wish for everybody in the world to have one. There just aren't enough resources in the world for that. So no, I'm not going to wish for everybody to have an F-150. But neither am I going to give it up until everybody CAN have one. we affect those around us, sometimes to an extent that we cannot gauge. Considering that, we are obliged to act in a manner that is likely to help society in the long run, That's wishy-washy in a way, because "help society" is a concept that varies with each individual. A person may think it helps society to eliminate all the people over age 70 because they are no longer productive but are a drain on society. But I know you aren't advocating that person working on killing off everybody over 70. But beyond that, why am I obligated in any way to care about people in Rwanda? You make that assumption, but just state it. Why do you think it's true?