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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (177476)	8/29/2021 8:44:24 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 218963

Kierkegaard was an optimist... He left out at least the obvious in... "or both." In attribution, at least, Lincoln got much closer... "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time". Bartleby.com Note, Kierkegaard's focus is, first, on the passive... as if errors of that sort are just something that happens now and again... and, second, he focuses on the error as implicitly being one of individual responsibility... but, far more importantly, of having an impact that is amoral and individual in scope... Kierkegaard makes it YOUR fault, only, for believing at the time... "I did not have sex with that woman"... And, he would limit the impact of that error to "Oops, YOU were wrong... for believing that" ? FWIW, I wasn't fooled by that one... were you ? Lincoln (as attributed) had the proper focus in addressing the moral issue in who was engaged in lying... without claiming lying doesn't ever work... and that if it does... its all your fault ? However more irony... in it being Lincoln telling that inconvenient truth... before being assassinated at the behest of the banks... for seeking to resolve the indebtedness generated by the war... in a way they found not to their liking ? Apparently... Kierkegaard was never honest enough,,, or good enough at it... to generate such a risk ? And, as for Lincoln... they're still at it... even by trying to kill his quotes... as if quotes have the same rules applied as "science"... requiring proofs in being peer reviewed... and, "you didn't say that" if they can't prove that you did ? The same ploy... as long applied in trying debunk biblical history... has pretty roundly failed, now... as archeology debunks the debunkers. Who said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."? Do I have to point out the irony... ? Otherwise, in your own use of others quotes ? All I see is a deflection... in which you shift from our "what is" in well focused "discussion of truths"... and how to find them... to irrelevant statements others made about being fooled... totally out of context ? To be relevant... you'll need to justify both: 1. HOW your positions are NOT fully aligned with the banks interest... which you pretend to resist... by advancing their agenda for them ? 2. How your positions as asserted are NOT what I've said they are... because... Hitler, Stalin and Mao... didn't really kill anyone ? 3. How your own method of determining truth functions delivers a superior result... as proven consistent in multiple use cases in multiple and unrelated instances... as adopting the blinders others have applied to you, as your own choice... is really the best way ?