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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (89272)	11/23/2004 12:49:07 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Back in during the American Revolution, the method of fighting was very civilized. The soldiers lined up on either side of the battlefield in nice regimented rows and then shot each other while the officers watched from a distance. Then the revolutionaries started using guerilla tactics which disgusted the British because it was so uncivilized. In many states we have the death penalty. In many cases we have adopted the more "humane" lethal injection and we don't let the general public see the execution. Not too many years ago (at least in the whole grand scheme of geological time), executions were public events and they were ugly, whether by firing squad, guillotine or hanging. And there was a time where hunting was the primary source of food in many areas (actually, that is still the case in many areas). But now we have the much more civilized way of picking up the ground beef at the grocer. And now wew are supposed to voice our disgust in a civilized manner. The reason I bring up these examples is that I think that there is merit in letting the ugliness exist. I think that there is a purpose for the ugliness. War is ugly. We shouldn't do it lightly. And when it comes to one's own life, getting killed in a civilized manner is no less dead. If ever put in a life and death situation (or that of a loved one), I will fight as dirty as possible. Execution is ugly too. We are ending a person's life. And we can't offload the responsibility of ending that person's life to the state any more than we can offload the responsibility of the cattle's life for the steak that we eat, to the slaughterhouse that does the killing. IMO, if you are not willing to witness an execution....or even to pull the switch, push the plunger or pull the trigger in an execution, then you have no right to support the death penalty. Same goes for food. If you are not willing to kill an animal to eat it, you really should stick to vegetables. And by the same logic, if you are willing to eat any flesh, you certainly have no right to make a judgement about someone who is willing to kill the food that they eat. In fact, if one takes responsibility for these things by keeping the ugliness there. Whether it is war, or execution or killing for food, I would bet that there would be much less of the ugliness and much less waste.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (89272)	11/23/2004 8:21:30 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

It's not about disagreeing with it, it's about the method. I fail to see what you have achieved. I understand from one poster that it's about expressing "indignation". Ok, so where does that get you, save for bonding you with other people who feel the indignation? And it looks to me like the bonds were there already. SO, I'm looking for a purpose to all this? Is there one? If you want to change minds, you don't do it like this. I guess if the aim is just to express, then this works. But should we all just "express" whatever we feel? Because if we should, isn't that exactly what Grainne was doing, because she felt indignation? Seems like it to me.