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 (29643)	1/25/1999 11:27:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>What policies are you talking about? Be specific. And who's forcing you to fraternize with anyone?< My statement concerns potential use of government force to implement policies I deem a detriment to me or mine, so that on the basis of what transpires in the bedroom, I can be forced to support another. I speak here theoretically. >I fully support your right to live your own lifestyle and raise your children as you see fit. Where's the problem here?< There is no problem whatever with this. >For me, "morality" is my view of right and wrong, good and bad, and at a deep fundamental level, that is unchangeable.< Perhaps, but your morality and the degree to which one must ascribe to it are certainly not objective. >Or one's belief that such qualities are innate manifestations of the normal human psyche. Along with benevolence and tolerance of diversity.< Well one can believe this, but here again there is nothing proving this objectively. Concepts such as “normal human psyche” really are ultimately meaningless. We must make comparison's of each person's morality and then assess whether it is compatible enough with ours to facilitate civility. Belief in some "innate quality of the human psyche" is religion. I have no problem with this, but it is certainly nothing one can take to China. >The concept of original sin and mankinds inherent tendency towards evil is a repugnant manifestation of religious irrationality, IMO.< Well, I disagree; and so that settles it. IMO. >Agreed, as long as [philosophical assaults] exist in reality and are not figments of paranoia.< Yup, though judging paranoia can be a tricky thing. After all, everybody really can be out to get you. >I am pro choice. To me, life begins when consciousness begins.< And to many people “consciousness” means “awareness”, and this for some will allow the killing of new born children and infants with impunity. Very well. Whose to say they cannot kill them? If the law allows it, can any of us claim it innately wrong? Perhaps your “innate psyche” stuff can help us. >When the brain functions, life exists. That to me is the dividing line on abortion.< Well then you no doubt are against the vast majority of abortions that transpire in this country. And seeing as rudimentary brain function kicks in quite early in the developing child, I'd say you are nearly pro-life. Unfortunately very many people here see things such as “brain functionality” differently. Who is right? >I do support your contention that you should not be forced to pay for, with your tax dollars, procedures that you consider murder. I also adamantly oppose capital punishment, not through any bleeding heart concern for the scum that deserve it, but through a philisophical conviction that the state should not have the power to murder individuals.< I see. My friend, I am sincerely interested, since you claim the scum deserves death, how you propose giving him what he deserves? Perhaps you would simply not give him his due at all? >Why should the law support [homosexuality] or deny it in any way?< This is quite beside the point. The law should not force others to support it. For example the homosexuals have for years attempted to use government might to force the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to openly exist as youth leaders, despite that organization's historic rejection of homosexual perversion. The government should not be used in this manner and yet homosexuals have incessantly aimed to do just this. Homosexuals may live as they please, but those who desire not to have open homosexuality held before themselves and their children (especially via private institutions) should not be forced toward homosexuality. >Who the hell cares what turns people on? I certainly don't.< Really now. You anger me with this silliness. I have told you the issue here. There is no need to be foolish. >If you wish to teach your children what you believe to be "healthy" and "normal", that's fine with me.< Very good, and as long as you do not aim to use government to allow others to teach them against my beliefs, then we will live in peace-- at least on this issue. >I'll even support voucher and tax relief programs so you can send your kids to a religious school where they can pray all day long and learn to resist the evil temptations of godless homosexual depravity.< This is only fair, since I already pay for your kids to attend public schools where they never pray, and where learning such insignificant things as mathematics and grammar play second fiddle to their learning the glorious principles behind condom use and homosexual “purity”. >(as if [homosexuality] is an acquired orientation). LOL!!< Well. I have seen nothing proving otherwise. And even so, the perversion will ever remain philosophically anathema to human existence. Perhaps cancer, alcoholism, AIDS and homosexuality are engines for natural selection, and therefore we should be thankful for them. LOL!! >Live and let live and live by the golden rule... < It works only when both sides follow the edict.