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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (490283)	11/10/2003 2:49:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

We are apes. "Call us what you must, but the objective fact is we are specific creatures partitioned from all others. You cannot breed with any sort of ape, except the particular ape known as “human.” My point therefore stands in the fullest force." >>> All species are 'partitioned'... That is the definition of 'species'. And, if an objectively superior creature (or at least a more powerful or 'advanced' one) happened upon the scene... would 'morality' not longer apply to us? No longer be derived from the human context? Be surplanted? Morality obviously refers to human actions in connection with other human, Buddy. We do not blame horses when they intentionally kick us. Neither do we blame apes. But we do blame other humans because we all understand that the human who harms us does so against the nature that he himself shares with us. We are all one thing – and we all know this intuitively. >>> So your answer is 'yes'. I reject the false dicotomy... though, it's true, my definition would fall somewhere between your two poles. I would choose to have a moral sense that transcended mere humanity... though as long as we have feet of clay, that might ever remain more goal than reality. "Please listen to yourself, Buddy. This is religious hogwash. All of this “transcending” crap is nothing that is objective between us. Humanity is certainly objective. When its logic takes shape in matter is objective. We all know it, share in it. It is fundamentally all that we objectively have. Should you “choose” to transcend it, you do nothing but enter the realm of nonsense – precisely like every other religionist on the globe." >>> Funny, I would claim that having a goal of improving ourselves --- our condition, our understanding of the universe, our ethics --- would be a good thing. >>> Any man who claims 'absolute knowledge' is a fool in my book. (No religion in that. )