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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (81128)	5/31/2007 5:48:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

"Our so called right to attack another country without overt provocation only becomes a double standard when we try to deny any and every other country the same so called right. As has already been clarified, that is not the case nor even possible. No double standard exists in this case.

To: JBTFD who wrote (81128)	5/31/2007 5:50:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

"That is the double standard. One set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another group. That is not a double standard we make different rules for all kinds of groups of people. Minors, adults, aliens, people who can drive, people who can pay for a ticket, etc.

To: JBTFD who wrote (81128)	5/31/2007 5:57:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

"And by the way a double standard does NOT have to be based on morals. That is one definition. The other one is : 1. any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, esp. an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women. So your point about morals is a red herring, No it isn't. You apparently do not understand the relationship of principles and morals. Codes of morality address the rights and wrongs of human conduct. They may be of a sexual nature or they may apply to other sorts of conduct that by its nature represents a right or a wrong. It is morally wrong to commit malicious harm to an innocent person. "even though to any normal person it is obvious that antagonistic violence against another country qualifies as a moral issue. I don't care if you don't agree because it is irrelevant anyway." I don't know what you mean by antagonistic violence but it seems like something I would agree with. And I agree it is an irrelevant comment.