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: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (177768)	12/12/2005 3:10:38 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rick, the fact that there are wars going on doesn't require people to check their brains at the local government department. <There is a WAR going on between Islamofacsists and the rest of the world deemed infidels. When war occurs innocent people die. No big deal compared to the soldiers who die volunteering to protect our liberty.> I think the "innocent people" might have a different view of the value of their lives. It's a stretch to think that soldiers in Iraq are protecting "our" liberty. One can make a small argument along those lines and I have done so, but liberty is far more at threat for me personally from the suffocatocracy and smothering of freedom in NZ by our government. People go on voting for more of it, like turkeys voting for more Thanksgiving days. It's also a stretch to say that there was a war going on when the air marshals shot the guy who was mentally disturbed. Mqurice

To: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (177768)	12/12/2005 4:37:02 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No. <Is it a statement of pacifism when you say "we have a broader view of humanity"?> It's not pacifist to suggest that mentally disturbed people, or deaf people, who fail to stop when called out to don't need to be shot to resolve the situation. It's not pacifist to understand that humans aren't all robotic identical clones of mindless compliance to dumb murderous authoritarians. <How do we identify who are included in "we"?> In free societies, "we" are those who don't get violent when somebody is a little out of the norm. < In free societies, the answer to stepping out of a very narrow circumscribed robot-like routine isn't death. We have a broader view of humanity. > "We" don't think free people should stay in a very narrow circumscribed robot-like routine or suffer summary execution. We have a broader view of humanity than that. You can tell if you are in "we" or not by thinking what your attitude is to people who don't comply with your particular model of perfection. For example "we" don't think deaf people should be shot for failing to respond to a call of "Stop, Police!!" when somebody who is secretly a policeman is wearing a Hawaiian shirt and pretending to be a civilian but is waving a gun around like a crazy. Mqurice