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: epicure who wrote (63430)	5/5/2008 6:34:39 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542019

Enjoyment? I think not. You rebuked me with, "Most people don't like the idea of people dying in the streets..." I don't see any other way of construing that but that you were asserting that I, unlike most people, liked the prospect of people dying in the streets. Which would make me a sadist. Right here in this post you said, " Since the penalty...is often death- that's a fairly harsh penalty you're wanting them to pay." I want people to die? Yeah, that would be really satisfying to me. I even hang around hospices because it's so satisfying. You made that up my dear. I hope you'll apologize for it. I think not. I'm not upset about being effectively called a sadist. And I know you're a relativist. Just trying to make a point about over-generalization, jumping to conclusions, bias, and the like. It's about analysis, for me, not insults. Insults roll right off. What troubles me is that there seems to be a tendency in some quarters to jump to the conclusion that if one doesn't want to use the favored approach to solve a human problem, one must be inhuman. This shows up commonly as a reaction to opposition to nationalized health care/insurance. It is a logical fallacy to assume that preferring some other approach to the healthcare problem equates to wanting people to die. There are usually multiple ways to solve any problem. Advocating for a no-proffered way way is not logically the same as not wanting to solve the problem. So it's in that context that I responded to you as I did. And mocking GW? Since the effects are already here, and already hurting people, I think it's completely fair to attribute some insensitivity to that position. As I read that transaction, Bob was not mocking GW but rather mocking you for throwing dead zones in with GW. He may have mocked GW somewhere else, but not in that transaction. And please, it's already quite clear that runoff and new weather patterns are related- which makes mocking the GW aspect that much more ridiculous. So the appropriate response to being mocked for something about which you are sure you are correct is to effectively call the mocker a sadist? There's a logical shortfall there, methinks, at the very least. Apology, anyone?