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: one_less who wrote (64758)	10/29/2002 4:58:43 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 82486

You have made the distinctions eminently clear to this attention-payer.

To: one_less who wrote (64758)	10/29/2002 5:16:51 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

this is your original statement, which i have tried to parse (perhaps incorrectly)... Those without a conscience would see no reason for concern unless an actionable crime has been uncovered. If you are not discovered and exposed you have not committed an actionable crime. No actionable crime, no violation what-so-ever. The notion that there could be principles of humanity that we are all accountable to is alien...accountable to who and for what? it would seem that you are implying that those "without a conscience" have the ability to act criminally because there is no "conscience" dictating behaviour.. and of course i agree with that as there are indeed sociopaths operating in society reflecting that mentality...i would categorize the john allen muhammad, the dc sniper as such. but there are also those "with conscience" who's consciences are maladjusted or otherwise distorted. in fact their "conscience" is a driving force for what we normally consider truly aberrant, sociopathic behaviour. i would characterize the religious zealots who believe as a matter of conscience, it is their god given responsibility to purge the world of "infidels" and non-adherents in that group. so i disagree with your point. "having a conscience upon which forms principles for living is not equivalent to fanaticism..." it can be at the very core and root of it.

To: one_less who wrote (64758)	10/29/2002 5:54:07 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think in that case the "innocent", as you define them, were perceived to be an enemy. Conscientious objectors aren't killing anyone in the service of their belief, so I fail to see how that works for you.