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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5872)	3/12/2003 1:57:09 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

"Solon, give us credit for some level of intelligence. In spite of your protestations to the contrary, your side in this is quite evident." I don't think I have questioned intelligence in regards to this discussion. I honestly have not arrived at a definite opinion. In the normal course of ethics I cannot see a justification here for active aggression. On the other hand, the ethical variables here are abnormal and extraordinary. IS there a "war" between religious fanaticism versus freedom and reason? And IF there is a war in progress...are there any ethical constraints on the other side? Is it fair to ask one side of a battle to handcuff themselves to a different set of rules than the other side needs or intends to follow? The Imperialism of Islam is a frightful thing. In my opinion they are constrained only by a lack of superior power...not by any ethical concerns for infidels--being ALL others* who desire freedom of religion, thought, or values.* I think that circumstances alter cases and that there is a war being fought between human rights and freedoms and totalitarianism fuelled by religious madness. Sometimes the final ethic is simply self interest and self preservation. Sometimes containment and disarming of individuals or groups may be justified. I am less concerned with the idea that responsible aggression may be practical than I am with the belief that civilized world opinion should not be overruled with disdain or contempt. Most of us are not privy to all the facts and suspicions. But the less unanimity one finds among the civilized participants, the more reluctant one is to endorse or tolerate reckless independence. I come back to what I have said before: Open dialogue on a public stage gives humans (not only now, but in the future) the opportunity to influence by words, and the responsibility to justify by reason, what is intended by the sword.