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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (29588)	1/24/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< I don't like Clinton or hate Clinton. I just find it sad that the real worthwhile goals of the GOP are probably going to go down the tube as a result of this stupid impeachment debacle >> JB, I have respected your opinions ever since the "Boink" days. But I disagree that some kind of "compromise" should be made on principle, to supposedly preserve "worthwhile GOP goals". They should be able to stand independently on their own! Regards, G. W.

To: miraje who wrote (29588)	1/25/1999 12:39:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Excellent, again! Although I would apply it only to serious core principles. Compromise is not only expedient, but smart in certain instances.< I try never to compromise a principle, though I can be flexible enough to, within limits, be quite understanding of others. I recognize that not everyone with whom I interact will have the same basis upon which they make their moral determinations. As long as they do not violate the terms I discussed in my prior post to you, I can embrace them. >Do you consider consensual sex of any sort between adults as threatening to your liberty?< Absolutely not. In fact I could not care less what people do in their bedrooms. Nevertheless should they aim to pass policies that would force me (or my children) to recognize, accept, fraternize with or in any way support them, this, on the basis of what they do in their bedrooms, I might consider this a threat to my liberty and/or existence. (Existence is to me a broad term, encompassing not only physical life, but also quality of life and values). >True. But I do believe it's a major mistake to assume that morality and ethics must be based in religious doctrine.< Of course this depends upon what you mean by “morality” and “ethics”. For some of us “morality” is by necessity an unchanging code. For others it can change. The former group may consider a changing code not morality at all. I nevertheless can respect a non-religious morality quite easily so long as it overlaps my morality in the basic areas discussed in my prior post. Surely one need not be a religious person to understand basic decency, integrity and trust. These things can be based upon one's own desire for self-preservation. I lose respect for those who, because an assault does not occur directly to them, are willing to ignore the fact that the assault perhaps has occurred to them philosophically. I believe over the long haul, philosophical assaults are just as pernicious as physical ones. >The principles you note above, along with honesty and basic decency (we may disagree on the definition of that), exist as positive human attributes in and of themselves.< Agreed. The problem here is that humans change, and so do their determinations concerning what is or is “positive”. Philosophically, abortion is a loaded gun pointing toward any sector of humanity not in possession of the might to survive against its human assailants. Yet our public has legalized it. To mitigate (not solve) this problem, I simply endure abortion morality (even though it threatens my life), claiming for myself the right to reject it by public word and private deed (I must do this so as to fulfill the demands of my principles), but not disallowing those who would kill their children to do so. Of course logically I must allow those who would kill their unborn children to kill them even after they are born. And we see here I must allow them to kill anyone they please except for myself and those whose interests I guard. Very well then. There is no morality that would hold me responsible to save the lives of others. I merely need guard the interests of me and mine (henceforth referred to as “I”), and let the world take care of itself. Now then if I should take this position, I believe I am entitled to a simple thing. I am entitled not to by force of law be either compelled to have an abortion, or to support it with my resources. This is reasonable, and yet liberals are always frothing at the mouth to force me to support what I consider pure murder and utter barbarity. >I am an athiest/agnostic (depending on how you define the terms) and have and live by a definite moral code that's based on common sense and reason, not dogma.< I know several such people, and while I of course see them as limited, I do not doubt that they have definite moral codes. You seem to think I have some notion that atheists are by default immoral people. This is the farthest thing from the truth. I know some atheists with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable leaving my children. I know some so-called “Christians”, Bill Clinton being one of them, who even were they dead I would have second thoughts about trusting. >Unless a couple mutually agrees to a sexually open marriage. I have no problem with any lifestyle arrangement as long as it doesn't involve deceit.< And why do you have a problem with deceit? What if the deceit is bilateral? Whatever the case, why is any of this your business? >And that includes homosexual marriages, too. I don't see how you or anyone else can view that as threatening to your freedom or liberty. There are many other issues that are genuinely eroding our freedoms.< Homosexuals can do as they please as far as I am concerned. I simply do not want the might of law to be used against me to support it in any way. It is a flagrant contortion, indeed a perverse denial of human identity. I consider it most unsound to take cavalier attitudes toward things that are flagrant denials of my identity. So I do not want the government to tell me I must allow it to be held before myself and my children as “healthy” and “normal”. My position is stronger since there is obviously no genetic partition between homosexual behaviour and normalcy. >I don't like Clinton or hate Clinton. I just find it sad that the real worthwhile goals of the GOP are probably going to go down the tube as a result of this stupid impeachment debacle.< I simply disagree with you that maintaining this principle is not a “real worthwhile” goal.