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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (34364)	4/11/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

When you remove God and we are just animals at the top of the chain then what is the basis for the morality that "Thou shalt not kill"? There is none. If there is no God then there is no reason to regard life as sacred and preserve everyone's right to it! Now its going to start getting interesting.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (34364)	4/11/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

When you remove God and we are just animals at the top of the chain then what is the basis for the morality that "Thou shalt not kill"? There is none. If there is no God then there is no reason the regard life as sacred and preserve everyone's right to it! Then why does your embodiment of God take such delight in killing and instructing us to kill one another? TTFN, CTC

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (34364)	4/11/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

It was not a noble experiment, it was a very self serving grab for power and a huge chunk of the world. Whoa, hang on. I asked you why bankers would subsidize a communist revolution. You replied: The thinking of the time was that communism could be the godsend of humanity, curing poverty and want and so forth. A little for everyone, no more want. Which seemed to be a claim that the bankers acted out of altruism, conducting a noble experiment. I thought this absurd, and said so. Now it seems that you are saying that the bankers subsidized the communists because they thought that the communists were going to take over the world, and that if they were providing the money, they would be in control. This is ridiculous. The bankers of that age viewed communists as something on the level of the bubonic plague, and knew perfectly well that if the communists ever took over they'd be the first ones up against the wall, regardless of who provided the money. I ask again: what self interest of the banking establishment could possibly be served by subsidizing a communist revolution? When a country is loaned money they back it with what they have. They will need loans again... The bankers always have the upper hand no matter what. Tell it to LTCM. Tell it to any bank with loan exposure in Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc. When Indonesia defaults, do you think Chase Manhattan is going to take possession of their oil reserves? There is no point giving you documented proof because you would reject the source. I would not reject any source that documents its claims with appropriate and credible references. The academic process has a purpose, which is to divide what is credible and demonstrable from what is not. I still maintain that Communism, Nazism, and other exclusivist political philosophies have a great deal in common with exclusivist religion, and that they share a tendency to impose their beliefs by force. Don't you find it odd that America's progress in justice, fairness, and equal rights has been achieved under a government that deliberately excludes religious influence from public affairs? No state dominated by the religious has ever done as much, or ever will. I don't think the American religious right, given power, would be one bit more tolerant of dissent than the mullahs of Iran.