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: one_less who wrote (6557)	6/23/2003 6:27:37 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

In the context, peace dealt with international strife, at that time particularly the Vietnamese and cold wars. But the principle was clear. As to equality, we were discussing racial equality, and that was the context of my comment. It addresses whether you use things like affirmative action or reverse discrimination, depending on which side you're on, to try to achieve equality, or whether you believe that those programs merely perpetuate discrimination and inequality, and the way you reach equality is to treat all people equally, period, and there is no other way to get there.

To: one_less who wrote (6557)	6/24/2003 7:51:05 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 7720

"Equality is not reached when I divide my wealth with someone who has nothing." Equality is a myth. The question is do you feel good giving away your material wealth. If you do that is your business and you gained by the experience. If your material goods are confiscated by the authorities operating under some notion of noblesse oblige you lost by the experience because you did not gain the moral impact of your generous actions but were in fact a forced third party.