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: one_less who wrote (70998)	7/26/2003 12:09:18 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. Because they were holding on to something. Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam? Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo and it's worth fighting for.

To: one_less who wrote (70998)	7/26/2003 5:44:46 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I have stated nothing about origins. This is ALL you and pervasive throughout the many pages of discourse on this topic. Misrepresentational again." As I said, you attached the word "Absolute" to your "moral" idea time and time again. As I have told you time and time again, the use of the word "Absolute" in meta-ethics refers to an Absolute ground which by definition exists apart from subjective human nature. Therefore, by using "Absolute" you were arguing that the ORIGIN was extrahuman. Now, I don't care if you knew it at the time. You DEFINITELY have been informed of this over and over again. I have never ever ever ever ever misrepresented anything you have said. I have asked you (if, as you claim, you do not speak of a supernatural origin to moral principles) to desist from the disingenuous use of the word "Absolute", and to confine your argument to whatever it is you are arguing. And I certainly don't know what that is, btw. But if you were not discussing the origin of moral principles then you were certainly not discussing Absolute moral values with me. Here is one of several links where I covered this topic only to have you answer that you were not talking about "origins". And as I have repeatedly said: "whatever you say." It is not necessary that I discuss Absolute moral principles with you. But it IS necessary, for understanding, that you set aside any pretense of such a discussion. Message 19145544 ______________________________ And finally... I said: "So if you only mean to state that there are relatively congruent ideas to reality, then fine." You responded: "I have never stated this as my argument and it is definitely misrepresentational. You have lifted a conditional proposition from my post and made this silly accusation. I DID NOT state anywhere that the proposition was validated. In fact...I have no idea what you mean to state. But I am getting somewhat annoyed at the petulance that accompanies your empty accusations. ""I will not discuss a topic with you while you continue to misrepresent my position."" If anyone is misrepresenting a position it is you. But I do not mind. It is all a matter of record...