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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (277953)	3/3/2006 6:01:48 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1572942

AK, It's also applicable to others too. But unlike you, when I'm asked if I'm empathetic to men's rights, I'll say absolutely yes and sometimes give an example or two. Elmer on the Intel thread gets annoyed that I don't advocate men's issues and asked me if I cared about their rights. My answer was absolutely yes, and I asked him why isn't he doing the heavy lifting by advocating men's rights? There are some people that think that if you advocate for one, it absolutely must mean you aren't empathetic to the other, and they don't even bother to ask. All they have to do is ask. You were advocating victims from one war, and I asked you if you are empathetic to victims from another war. RE: " bit hypocritical on your part, don't you think?" Nope, it a pretty consistent position. RE: "it was nasty" Well, that is for sure. Yeesh. RE: "but probably less so than few of your prior posts." Show me a line that was worse than what you wrote. RE: "I said more than once that it is applicable to any victim of any war" You said you were empathetic to any victim of the ONE war. Not ANY war. It wasn't until the end when you said you were empathetic to victims of other wars. RE: "what was wrong in talking about one specific war?" Nothing. But when you focus on one thing, you have to allow for people to ask you if you are empathetic to other things. That's why at first I continually repeated you may have an unspoken empathy to other victims, but you didn't bother to confirm it until the end. RE: "Specific war vs general war" I'd rather figure out what general issue there is with humans that permits them to engage in such horrible atrocity and how to avoid them altogether from ever happening again. I find it deeply disturbing the Holocaust happened because it means that humankind has an enormous potential to target innocent people, and that citizens can follow like sheep and permit their leaders to do atrocities. When I asked the elderly lady (relative by my sister's marriage) who was in a concentration camp why anyone could do something like that to a group of people, her answer was a very consistent, "there's no excuse." And I think that's what sets her apart from the rest of humankind - there's never an excuse for any type of atrocity. You would think that value system should be a basic ingredient to all people, but obviously it's not when you look at history. There is something scary about humankind that permits it to act like sheep and be apart of atrocities. I do believe humankind hasn't sufficiently studied human faults enough to get to the bottom of this, and by not doing so, history has the potential to repeat itself because people aren't properly educated on why they followed like sheep allowing the targeting of innocent people. On a different note, I do believe in 100 years, the history books will show Bush led this country to attack Iraq without any provocation, and that citizens followed like sheep. Regards, Amy J