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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (109670)	10/22/2007 8:27:48 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, Obviously I wouldn't personally ransack my neighbor's house unless the condition was so extreme I was willing to accept the consequences of my actions. But I would under some conditions, and I would feel no remorse even if they arrested me because I technically broke the law. One example might be if I was almost certain there was a kidnapped child inside my neighbor's house that was under imminent threat, would not survive until the police came, but felt certain I could handle the situation. Again, IMHO, you have to think about some things differently than we are used to. It's about probabilities vs. upsides and downsides. Some things are obviously wrong most of the time, but a very small percentage of the time they must be considered because the downside is so huge. Now in the case of the war, it was/is perfectly reasonable for people to argue about the probabilities of various scenarios and the upsides/downsides of action vs. inaction and come to very different conclusions. However, IMO many people are not even understanding the thinking. I have no problem with the different conclusions. It's the thinking that gets them there I sometimes have a problem with.