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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1581119)	1/4/2026 2:08:52 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (16) \| Respond to of 1586267

Every functioning moral system must define what it means by evil, explain who has authority to judge, and clarify whether intent, context, and redemption matter. That isn’t postmodernism; it’s moral philosophy going back to Aristotle, Aquinas, and Augustine, long before anyone ever uttered the word “AI.” Your murder analogy collapses immediately. No serious moral or legal framework says intent, standards, and due process mean “anything goes.” In fact, the opposite is true: without clear definitions and frameworks, arbitrary accusation becomes justice, and that’s how societies actually rot. As for Venezuela: There is no war against Venezuela, no declaration, no invasion, and no “war of choice” in any coherent sense of the term. That claim is factually wrong, not morally nuanced. Conflating sanctions, rhetoric, and actual warfare is exactly the kind of disinformation you claim to oppose. Finally, declaring who “goes to heaven” while rejecting the need for moral frameworks is pure contradiction. You’re asserting absolute judgment while denying the intellectual tools required to justify it.