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.

Pastimes : "I STILL own the ban button, buddy" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1154)	12/22/2012 11:22:19 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 2133

"all the emotional posturing about the Connecticut public school shootings..." This gratuitous accusation of "emotional posturing" shows a callousness and insensitivity that is either sociopathic or a related psychiatric disorder. ...if we are merely bits of stardust that happens to have congregated in one of many possible manners, then there is nothing wrong or objectionable in rearranging the stardust a little. ...What difference does it make to the universe? Is that character still in grade school? Since when did anyone ever assert that "the universe" had values? That the murder of little children made a difference to "the universe". Are the parents unfeeling and uncaring? Are they simply "posturing" their grief?? That guy is a lout--pure and simple. What does the indifference of the universe have to do with how people feel and what and who they love and value?? "if consciousness does not exist, if it is the illusion that some of the more imaginative neurophilosophers..." Why isn't he addressing this stupid nonsense to one of the "imaginative neurophilosophers"--if that is who he is trying to dispute with"?? Seeing as he is formulating both sides of a contrived argument it just comes out as gibberish. I cannot defend an "imaginative neurophilosopher" because I do not know what his position is on the murder of little children or why. This lout seems to be suggesting that "imaginative neurophilosophers" claim that human values do not exist and that people do not experience loss when they lose loved ones. Who claims that? Let us have the evidence. "if there are too many people on the Earth, in the country, then is not the reduction of that excessive number to be celebrated?" Of course. If there are too many people for safe living conditions and prevention of disease and sharing of resources, then improvement of that problem would be a cause for celebration. But how is murdering children an improvement? That is like saying that because there are too many people in prison, then is not the reduction of the prison population an eventuality to be celebrated? Well yes! If it is done through improving the social infrastructure of families so that drugs and crime are reduced! But not if it is done by walking in and executing all the petty criminals. And certainly not by murdering a group of innocent children? That lout has a complete disconnect with reality. It is disgusting that you post such idiocy here. You ought to be ashamed. He then goes on to ask (in a weasel-like fashion), if abortion is legal, then how long after birth should abortion be permissible? The question is absurd. The legality of abortion is sanctioned on the specifics of human rights and moral issues. The illegality of murder is also predicated on human rights and moral issues. Abortion law deals with the issues involved in unwanted pregnancies. This cannot be carried over into unloved children. Once birth takes place, a person with human rights comes into existence by agreement of lawmakers and moral theorists--and with the permission of the mother. The legality of abortion does not impair the rights of human persons. This lout is very clearly suggesting that there is no moral difference between terminating an unwanted pregnancy and the vicious and senseless murder of school children. That he would write that and that you would repeat it marks both of you as ignorant goons. In summary, he believes (as do you) that: There is no difference between having an abortion and murdering 20 school children. There is no objection (at least from "imaginative neurophilosophers ") to the murder of 20 school children. The murder of 20 school children reduces the population. Overpopulation is sometimes a problem. Therefore, murder is good. People come from stardust. The universe has no feelings and no values. Therefore, human values are irrelevant and grief over murder is just "emotional Posturing". Finally, he asserts (without proof, of course) that atheists believe that there is nothing good and nothing bad and that the earth has too many people! He completely ignores the truth that atheism is only about not believing in God! All atheists have their own individual philosophies, politics, and economic and scientific beliefs! I think he might have almost said one true statement if he had said that most atheists probably don't believe in an Absolute good and evil as posited in the superstitious literature. But he didn't say that, did he? People like him are dishonest and deliberately contrive what they say to misrepresent. You know what that is all about. LOL!! Overall, the point he makes is that he believes that if god does not exist then all caring, love, grief, etc. are "emotional posturing". Presumably, the only thing that compells any morality on his part is his fear of being tortured forever by a ferocious and unforgiving god. So if Science was to come up with incontrovertible evidence that Yahweh is a myth, then this degenerate would have no reason to follow the moral dictates that hold most human societies together but would start "emotional posturing"--which of course he does not do now!! Not a sincere fellow such as that!! -g-