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 Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3993)	1/22/2003 5:06:13 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 7720

Good. "This may be the point of our departing. Then we should stay on this point and argue it and not go off on tangents of "government mind control" or davy crocket or whatever. "You seem, if I understand you correctly, to say that this role is mandatory. That it is our obligation, our responsibility, which we are not entitled to evade or avoid. Correct?" Sort of. I am saying that it is a matter of fact related to our human condition. We breath because we are human, we live and we die because we are human beings. We are sexual beings because we are human beings. We are members of humanity because we are human beings. etc.... We can deny all of these things and we can actively strive to evade, avoid or in other ways impact the facts of our human condition. "I would answer that it is an optional role we can take on or not if we choose. Agreed. I can stop breathing at my option. Now, if we choose not to, society does not have to admit us to its rights and benefits. That is correct. Society (I would define that as some sort of order and culture that humanity is associated with in membership). "Suicide is the ultimate decision to reject all of those roles Which is why I believe it is the right of any person. By denying the right to suicide, you seem to me necessarily to be denying a person's right to reject that role. You seem to be saying that the role is mandatory." I don't think we can continue using the word "right" in the same argument when you do not seem to recognize that my use of the term is different than yours. I have explained the differences, you continue to use the word as if there is no difference. Your use of the word "right" here means that you have a free will. "Suicide is the ultimate decision to reject all of those roles Which is why I believe it is the right of any person. You can replace the word "suicide" with any word that represents a complete breach with humanity (as I have couched humanity). In other words you have the right (as you use the word) to go against any or all societal establishments and suicide is the ultimate example. Yes you do. Again that is what free will is. Up until this point (if I have correctly understood you) we are in agreement. The conclusion then for you is that Society should make it legal for you to express your free will by going against it and the legalization of suicide would be the ultimate expression of legalizing free will. The less ultimate expressions of legalizing free will would be taking away traffic laws. Hey, why should you have to stop at a corner just because there is a sign and a cop nearby. No traffic, you can see for miles. And from traffic laws we move to social issues. Everything becomes an individual circumstance that does not regard the other members of society, and other members of society, and society at large owe you no particular regard. Welcome to anarchy. "Which raises the question, how did this role come to be?" No it doesn't. That is a tangent, there are many. I am not ready to discuss tangents. You were doing so well. Focus Chris.