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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (11869)	2/14/2006 10:00:48 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 540733

Absolutely. I'm seriously concerned about drunk driving, but it's not my top priority, same with AIDS, same with a whole host of issues. It's just silly to say you aren't concerned about something merely because it isn't your top priority. Your top priority ought to be the thing that is most clearly a crisis, and/or most dangerous. Now people could disagree about what is most dangerous, or what is closest to crisis- but we needn't say people aren't taking other things in a manner that is less than serious, simply because we rank risks differently.

To: KonKilo who wrote (11869)	2/14/2006 10:20:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540733

I see. Your objection was to the word, "serious." I don't take offense at that word. When one side thinks the risk is existential, I can see how a middling priority would be perceived as unserious. Ordinarily I rail against binary thinking, but if a problem is, indeed, existential, then binary thinking is understandable, essential, even. Anything short of total consumption with the problem is inherently "unserious." I would not object to the use of the "serious" terminology but rather with the notion that the problem is existential because the former derives inevitably from the latter. The terminology issue is a misleading proxy.