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 (15434)	6/25/2002 2:23:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"I am sorry if it not persuasive to you." ditto...I also have acknowledged the punishing element. I do not understand why you see the intent to cause suffering as necessary, when the "suffering" is endemically woven into the fabric of experience. The suffering that is inherent to the cause of justice, especially when balancing the scales, once tipped, is a natural bi-product that must be acknowledged. However, the intent to cause suffering, for no other reason than to make someone suffer, has no other interpretation than cruelty. Even when we maim or kill an enemy in self defense the intent is only self protection and preservation. The maimed attacker can expect to be suffering. However, this is not the primary focus of our action. At the point of attacker stops, the moral standard is to withdraw arms. In other words, "We don't kick the dog when it is down." I am more than a little confused by your insistance that we intend to cause suffering as the primary motive or standard of Justice.