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: Solon who wrote (70651)	7/2/2003 11:06:54 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Speaking of morals...it's time to take a moral stand against big brother the AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP!!!!!! THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF FREEDOM WE HAVE IS ALMOST GONE!!!!!!! STOP THE ORWELLIAN MADNESS NOW Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum... TOTAL POLICE STATE TAKEOVER The Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What Is Left of American Liberty infowars.com It doesn't matter which party you belong to....PASSING LAWS WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO READ THEM????!!!! this entire move to strike at every fiber of our Constitution is being carried out by John Ashcroft and the White House.....THIS IS WRONG.....the intelligence services HAD THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND DID NOTHING.......the agents in the field knew what might happen.....the bureaucrats above them buried it......there is no need to destroy our civil liberties with either PATRIOT I OR II, in the name of the terrorism threat, but this latest "legislation" is above and beyond comprehension in it's scope of taking away the checks and balances....(.remember those???) of our Constitution.....write and call as many of the Congressional representatives as you possibly can and tell them to stop this. CC

To: Solon who wrote (70651)	7/2/2003 11:55:48 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

My first inclination was to automatically go with my daughter but I did not declare that to be my final choice because of the unknowns of the situation. I doubt seriously if anything would change that first inclination. I can justify it and refer to several principles that would support such a decision. I freely admitted and still do that my self-interest would be a primary driver in the decision and that it would be based in part on my subjective analysis and judgement of the situation. You would like to lay a judgement on me that does not apply. I don't know why you go to that strategy in every discussion we have. Whatever... There is no way that I would allow any outsider or external doctine to usurp my responsibility over this situation. That is an unwarranted and unproductive tag to place on my side of the argument. If you insist on continually going there, then you demonstrate lack of good faith in this discussion. ... sorry but I had to get that off my chest. So, here is how I see the decision making. I do see the moral absolutes as being external (as in the sound in the forest whether we are there to hear it or not). We have the capacity to recognize the ideal and internalize it for our own uses. However, we are bound to operate in the physical realm by using our ability to analyze situations and determine either subjectively or objectively a best course of action...based on some principle that we believe supports our best interests. Where we agree is that every situation is unique and every individual would percieve and act on it differently. Where I deviate from your explanation is that I see that as an individual application of some universal ideal (moral absolute).