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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (81901)	11/24/2009 12:02:13 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Did you not realize that I was quoting your own words back to you?" Of course I recognized it, however, context is everything where meaning is concerned. That's why you get so upset if you don't feel the context of your post is properly respected in a response.

To: Greg or e who wrote (81901)	11/24/2009 12:38:57 PM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I think I'll just sit and wait for the rabbit to return instead of chasing down that trail." And so let's take a look at the direct quote from you. We have been discussing what is right as it may be bound in natural conditions. There are some basic revelations about what is right and ought to be, which can be observed when noting the true nature of things whether bees, bears, wolves, or human beings. This has been one of the foundations of this discussion strand between you and I from the beginning. "You cannot move from what is to what ought to be if you do not first KNOW what the proper function and purposes are." What ought to be and what is right in the case of wolves is to support them in their natural role of managing the health of herd populations where that can practically be accomplished. What ought not to be is for us to exterminate the wolves because, in our ignorance, we think they are mean to the bambis. Like wise as we learn more about mutually beneficial relationships in other non-human nature we support that and it ends up helping us to have a cleaner and more thriving environmental host here on earth. We've even learned about something called beneficial burns in the forest, which provides a long term result which is a healthier and more productive forest than the one we end up with when we try to keep any fire from entering the forest habitat. Who'd a thunk, a hundred years ago, fire in the forest can be a good thing. Human beings were created with a nature bound in the morality of right and wrong, and this is the basis of determining what is or ought to be right for human beings. Once you first KNOW what that is, you can extend to other tiers of rights ... like who owns the apple when the tree limb extends over your neighbors property line. Maybe you already KNOW, maybe you don't, but the more ways you can come to knowledge, the greater depth of understanding you have and the likely hood of being able to communicate that knowledge is raised. A teacher whether in a public school or a university will fail if they can't flex into a variety of methods and approaches to bring knowledge to their students. I found it odd that you positioned the Golden Rule as an imposition under very narrow even exclusive interpretation, rather than a universal truth that is understood by all cultures, even when they have never been exposed to the New Testiment. I would argue, to the extent our nature is imposed, universal truths about what ought to be is also imposed whether one has recited John 3:16 or not... prolly just opened a can_o_worms there ... oh well.