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: Lane3 who wrote (71658)	8/5/2003 12:48:15 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

He said "generally" and qualified that by stating that there may be "overriding considerations" that "dignify" it as a choice. I am guessing that most people who make the choice (if it is even a choice, since there are many who can't have children and suffer for the want of them) have weighed the decision carefully and have determined that the most dignified way to move on with life (in their circumstances) would be in a childless fashion. That is compared to many people who pump out babies without the slightest concern and live very undignified lives. Did you have something else to say that would be enlightening?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71658)	8/5/2003 1:01:52 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you said "I consider religious belief to be misguided, and agnosticism/atheism to be more rational", I would have no objection, and would consider it more or less equivalent to what I said about childlessness. The use of the term "imaginary friend" was simply making fun of the idea of God in a manner that suggested that those who held the belief were childish, and therefore was directly offensive, in a way in which the blunt statement would not have been.