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 (78811)	11/8/2003 12:34:18 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Last I heard you were a castrating female. Now you're in favor of killing lame children? I need to get caught up on the thread....

To: Lane3 who wrote (78811)	11/8/2003 12:48:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You may have missed this...maybe not but here ya go. ”If I made more of those comments than was specifically relevant, then I am sorry. I am not aware of having done that but the exchanges were a little over rought IMO. Could be that y'all read more into my comments than was there ... In any event Karen feels allegations were made that were untrue and that she was harmed or upset by that so again I am sorry for any thing I did to bring about a misunderstanding of where her position lies on any topic.” siliconinvestor.com Having said that were were talking about public policy (PBAs) not some isolated incident where one might be taking a noble stand against world opinion. The public policy of PBAs if endorsing, "hey, since the baby would be crippled anyway, lets kill it", creates a slippery slope for future infanicide policies and beyond that, about the differently able on a grand scale. I was challenging an attitude that must take responsibility for its ramifications.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78811)	11/8/2003 1:17:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”Just as you would be thoughtful about how to implement them, so would I. I realize that you don't trust that I would be thoughtful, but I would.” There is absolutely no rational to endorse anyone’s death choice a priori. As we have discussed in the past, we have an obligation to intervene when someone is going through a period of transient despondency. Since people can be very deceptive when suffering some extremes of misery, we also have an obligation not to accept their wishes on face value when death is an issue. You have no way of knowing whether or not the thoughtfulness I have about the assisted death of a third party, justifies the act unless you are directly involved and qualified to make that assessment. I don’t believe such a mechanism is possible. So, when considering public policy, we can either determine that no choice to die, or assist in death, should be given automatic thumbs up, or policy should approve the practice without sanction in any case. Since you and I agreed there are justified circumstances for choosing death but I would object to any public policy that sanctions the practice how do I also declare it justified? The measure is an act of cowardice vs bravery in the face of extreme and usually unique situations. It is unlikely that any public policy could predict or account for such things. In such extreme situations “approval” from others is not a factor at the time of action and the circumstance would not rise to the level of bravery/cowardice if it were. It requires a bold individualist to stand against the world of his peers, if need be, to do what he knows in his heart is the good thing. For example” the world may never know stood against some corrupt cops to protect an innocent and died in the process, and the world may condemn him for his actions. He made a choice to die but not to avoid the inconvenience of his own circumstance but to stand against malfeasance. Making a choice to die in order to avoid the inconvenience of one’s own lot in life or making that choice for another is an act of cowardice.