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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20382)	6/14/2005 10:32:44 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Please don't misstate what happened. I got interested in religious practices AFTER people got so upset- because I figured maybe it was a religious thing, but at least as far as Jesus goes, it's not. So don't make it sound like I've mixed up two issues. I became interested in something, which may be unusual on SI (or not) but it's hardly a crime that needs to be reported to Solon. I said esprit de corps needs to be rethought if it makes men want to go risk their lives for dead bodies. I still think that. I think it would be horrible to have a life man die for a dead one- because the dead are meat- that's just what they are. Some people may idealize the dead bodies as something more, but really, they are dead tissue. If people could "get" that, maybe no one else would ever die going after a body- would that not be a good thing? The living, imo, need all the aid we can render them, but to have a live man die to retrieve a body is just...waste, of a precious human life. I realize that seems to be some strange alien idea, but truly, I don't get why it is so alien. I can understand how one can believe a body is more than a body, after all some people believe wine can turn to blood and bread to flesh; what I do not understand is why people would get SO angry at someone who believes flesh is meat, when that is a lot less fantastic than wine turning to blood (and less "offensive" imo, if you are grossed out by things physical, since the idea of drinking blood- even symbolically - has in the past given some people pause). I have a different idea. I fail to understand the witch hunt necessary because I think differently. If people are on SI to make everyone think the same, that seems a poor reason to be on SI (and what is attacking someone all over SI, but an attempt to get them to shut up? Of course it is an attempt to silence someone, which I think is a shame.) I'm tired of the witch hunts. If people don't agree with ideas they should comment on the idea not the person, and then move on with their lives.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20382)	6/15/2005 1:53:14 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Thank you for that context; it does not change my opinion. It is obvious to me that "authority" has always used the lives of others for their own ends. Religious appeal has always been a huge part of that selfish game. I am well aware of the principles you put forth as explanation. I wonder how many of these kids have lost their lives needlessly because of that "mutual commitment". I suppose you are aware that that "mutual commitment" could be inculcated to exclude dead bodies? The commitment to dead bodies is NOT necessary to express brotherhood or morale. Commitment to live bodies expresses that. Commitment to dead bodies is superfluous and foolish--IMO. I just visited the Donner Memorial where the Donner party resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. This was an appropriate use of dead bodies. This was the origin of "finger food". Even "religious" people will appreciate that dead bodies are "meat"...when their stomachs approach their spine...