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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (131759)	5/6/2004 11:34:55 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are merely ignorant of the terms employed. "Mitigate" does not mean "justify", it means that there is something which makes the infraction less severe, and therefore makes punishment less harsh. For example, if a man stumbles upon his wife with a lover and kills them, it is considered a mitigating factor that he was acting under extreme emotional duress. He will still be convicted of manslaughter, but will not be considered guilty of murder, and will spend less time in prison. I am merely saying that a thorough investigation will take into account all circumstances of the infraction, even those which might lessen guilt. You make the choice of allowing the explosion to occur rather than dirtying your hands. The evil of the explosion is so disproportionately worse than beating the prisoner, yes, you are culpable.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (131759)	5/6/2004 11:43:42 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Now, here is a trickier one for you: bank robbers have a group of hostages, and threaten to kill them off systematically if you do not let the robbers escape. They have already killed one, so you know they are not bluffing, and you cannot get in to overpower them before the next scheduled execution. Do you let them go, in order to save the remaining hostages? The answer, in this case, is "no", because that would only encourage the further taking and killing of hostages by others in the future. It would make such behavior a trump card to get away with anything.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (131759)	5/6/2004 11:47:22 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Now, here is a third one: you have the hostage situation, including the threat to kill all of the hostages until getting what they want, and having already killed one. The only way to rescue the hostages is to storm the bank in force, but it is likely that one or two of the hostages will be killed in the process. Do you storm the building" The answer is "yes", it is the option which is the most conservative of human life, without acquiescing to the demands and laying the foundation of more such behavior, even though it involves the death of some "human shields"......