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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (89196)	11/22/2004 8:50:33 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

ionesco, I have been a vegetarian for well over 20 years but not for health reasons; I regard animals with reverence and respect and awe. I am not evangelical about it and allow people their steaks and chops if that is what they want. What CGB seems to be condoning and even applauding is the mindless--psychotic, if you will--selfish killing of humans by another human. This murder spree had nothing to do with saving animals from someone's dinner table. That she would allude to this speaks to lapses of synapses occurring in her cranium. My opinion only, of course. - Holly

To: epicure who wrote (89196)	11/23/2004 11:51:16 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is a huge gap in your thinking as you fail to acknowledge that no halfway civilized society condones murder. It is taboo everywhere, unless you except some barbaric tribe of New Guinean head hunters. Grainne condoned murder, justified it, and gloated over it for reasons which to me appear trivial in comparison to the act. The hunting of deer simply does not justify murder. It's really quite simple. The statement was barbaric, no matter how many logical convolutions you take to get to the point that you simply dismiss these abominations as being "relative" in the big scheme of things. That the murders are allegedly justified on some "higher" morality, i.e., the protection of animals, simply evades the issue. Murder is murder, and while we don't always condemn it, I think we are morally inept if we don't challenge those who gloat over it. What you forget is that by engaging in these distorted convolutions you too end up justifying the unjustifiable. There are times when something is so wrong it needs to be forcefully said to be wrong. Otherwise, we end up abjuring our responsibilities as human beings. And, sure, I think discussing the moral implications of war in the Middle East is totally appropriate. But so is discussing the lack of morality that leads to the celebration of murder.