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: Neocon who wrote (48094)	5/17/1999 9:45:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

It is an old question and we have been through it many times before. By what means can we determine the widows and dog eaters are barbaric? We can do it by modern western means, but to an easterner this determination may not amount to a hill of beans. Surely I believe not all cultures are equal, but I also understand I am not God. Without an Ultimate Perspective a comparison of cultures is made only by a battle of positions. This is why abortion barbarism runs rampantly throughout the so-called civilised western societies; and if abortion can run rampant in a civilisation, then surely dog eating and suicide can. The West has accepted a relativistic view of Ultimate Might such that It effectively does not and cannot authoritatively comment upon such issues. The view that abortion, suicide and dog eating are to be listed amongst those things that, as you say, “are barbaric, period” has been dismissed in the West simply with the modern western question “says whom?” Now it is possible to judge such matters within our current secular western framework, and when we do we find abortion, dog eating and suicide fall outside that framework (in other words we find these things are barbaric-- unacceptable to our notions of society.) Nevertheless because for purposes of convenience we often overlook the principles under-girding the current framework, these flaws become the basis of a new framework that allows the societal acceptance of what was previously considered barbaric. The upshot of all this is simply that without Ultimate Might, no thing is barbaric, period. You may reject dog-eating because your culture commonly views dogs a pets, but others cultures reject cow eating because they commonly view cows as divine. Now which is ultimately the barbarian culture? >Besides, even if there is a contextual precondition, it merely puts the question at a higher order of generality--- so it may be okay to eat dogs, but not true pets, whatever they may be in that locale. As long as there is a kinship with whales perceived by Western man, it makes sense that there should be a reluctance to see them harmed....< But this is not the issue. Few Westerners have pet whales. Fundamentally the issue concerns the ultimate “specialness” of a particular object or organism. I contend that without an Ultimate Perspective, no object is special and that all things are as expendable as sand, this, depending upon the determination of one who has Might enough to make his determination stick. Unless Might determines something is barbaric, there is no barbarism. Might Makes Right. This is the ruling philosophical principle of all existence and it has always been thus no matter how much we desire to pretty up the thing. Eat chimps and whales or even other humans if you have Might enough to get away with it. There are no special things under the sun.