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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2765)	2/17/2004 4:34:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

No Ted you don't see. You say this over and over. Frankly, if I don't see, its because there is some hidden code behind your words that only you know. No its that you take what I say and extend it to mean something different then what I say. I'm not using a hidden code or even complex difficult words. Saying that Israel could refuse to give land to the Palestinians is not saying that doing so is right or that might makes right any more then saying that China was able to conquer Tibet with little difficulty and no severe consequences means that China's invasion was right. The "law of the jungle' means there is no law. Its the survival of the fittest and the laws of man become irrelevant. Do you understand the difference between a situation where you have only "the law of the jungle" and one where you have "to and extent" have "the law of the jungle"? There is no real law in international relations but their are agreements, treaties and international bodies that result in a situation somewhere between real law and the law of the jungle. When there are now laws except the laws of the jungle, then there is anarchy.....anything goes 1 - I specifically said the situation was like the law of the jungle to an extent. 2 - Even if I had said "its the law of the jungle", that doesn't mean I would be endorsing the law of the jungle or saying that "might makes right. It has everything to do with the UN and Israel's repeated disregard of UN resolutions involving her. Again, its the law of the jungle; Israel is a regional superpower and doesn't need to follow the rules of the UN. It has nothing to do with the UN because the UN is not the law over other nations. Yes, it does.......if you have total control, you get to decide what's right. No you don't, you only decide what is going to happen. If evil people have control their evil does not become right. If they do evil to others it is still wrong even if they never face punishment for it. Whenever you have power, you control your universe and when in complete control, you can determine what is right or what is wrong. I categorically reject that idea. But even if it was true Israel doesn't have the power to control the universe or even control everything that impacts on Israeli interests and concerns. Also you think it is true then you never have any reason to declare any action immoral. If the action happens then obviously someone had the power to do it. If having the power to do it means that the action is made right then by definition of "made right" it would not be an immoral or unjust action. This basically amounts to the belief that ethics and morals are useless concepts. That is why I categorically reject the idea that power determines what is right and wrong. You seem to be the one arguing that might makes right. I'm directly stating that it does not. Your statement ""Whenever you have power...you can determine what is right or what is wrong" is a direct statement that might makes right. Power is the same as might and you are telling me that the person with power determines what is right and wrong. If the right thing to do is to give back the land then presumably not doing so would be wrong whatever power Israel has or doesn't have. Yes. Then, assuming you are right that not giving the land back is wrong, not doing so is not an example of might makes right but rather one of might doing wrong. Mighty people groups or countries can do wrong in fact they frequently do. Tim