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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (5381)	2/5/2003 1:36:07 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I think you them mixed up with men of evil character who murder and plunder without conscience. No, I think you've got your rhetoric a bit "mixed up." What you'd said was that "[...i]t is true men of character who stand up for their beliefs and aren't afraid to state what those beliefs are even if it goes against the majority." And I agreed with the notion that, in the first instance, character has more to do with standing up in support of unpopular beliefs than with the nature of the beliefs themselves. Being in favor of taking action against Iraq is certainly an unpopular stance and...if surrounded by the right (wrong?) people...as respectable of defending/maintaining as one who defends pacifism when surrounded by the hawkish. You're now - predictably (if I'd expected differently, I wouldn't have posted) - backpedaling, imposing an arbitrary, self-serving moral dimension upon the original statement. Now, qualifying that "[...s]tating your beliefs is one thing................believeing [sic] you have the right to murder on a first strike is evil." In the context of affairs where dissenting viewpoints opt to selectively chose advantageous starting points (events, history, etc.) from which to gauge the current state of affairs; and moreover where perspectives lead to disjointed definitions of "preemptive strikes" vs. those of "aggression," debating the role of combatants and noncombatants - to let alone the lofty and utterly intractable implications of what is and isn't "evil" - all of these issues pivot on some overriding "belief" system. Right? Certainly, one could as easily say that it takes an individual of "evil character" to maintain that under no circumstances is preemptive action justifiable; that only the deeply immoral would disagree that, in some circumstances, striking first is not only right, but salutary. One could say that, given current affairs, the lack of action is immoral; perhaps "evil," as well. Right? Does it take any less courage, or character, to support that indisputably less popular course of action? And as for this, There is no self-defense in this case that can be justified on grounds other than opinion......................and opinion is spin. Hypoxia. Self-defense can't be justified on "grounds other than by opinion"? (As opposed to other perspectives?) And "opinion is spin"? It shouldn't be so easy to cause so much pain. No, it shouldn't. How much work (to ask nothing of thought) did you put into this clumsy post? LPS5