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 (506841)	12/9/2003 5:53:12 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

[Well, it comes down to numbers, then. Which action causes the most deaths.] "Dear me. How stupid can one get? It is not about a friggin' numbers game, certainly not primarily (though numbers are a factor also). The issue of concern was the directness of the intent. In one case the murderer wished to derive a certain benefit by actually seeking to murder specific people. In the other case the murderer wished to make a product that required he dump chemicals that... oh just forget it!" >>> So, in your view, the murder of one person (who willingly committed the murder) has --- possibly --- committed a more serious offense... than the polluter (out after profit) who never-the-less committed his actions in the full knowledge of the death and diseases he would be causing? >>> Why? Isn't the situation analogous to the robber (who intends only profit), but who never-the-less knew when he hit his victim over the head that he might be causing their death... but who went ahead and did it anyway? >>> What if he did it (robberies and physical assaults... resulting in several 'incidental' deaths) MULTIPLE TIMES, so that his 'body count' began to approach that of the hypothetical polluter we were discussing? >>> (Dead children don't care about 'the directness of the intent.' They are just dead....)