SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (76097)10/1/2003 8:00:26 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
"But I don't defer to the law when I decide what I think is just or unjust. The issue is not settled by what the law says"

Well, that is what I have been saying. No need to pile on your agreement.

"And I think a case could be made there esp. if you had already bought the ticket to the hockey game. But absent that consideration I do not think someone has done harm to you, mainly because no one has done anything to you."

Again, you are mistaking the concept of harm with the concept of accountability. Obviously you harm me when I drive a hundred miles for a hockey game and I am disallowed entry because some ass-hole is a prejudiced pig. Why would I say I was harmed if I was not?? That does not mean the ignoramis at the gate is legally accountable. It depends on the law, doesn't it?

"1 - The idea that someone who is not doing anything to you can reasonably be said to have put a burden on you and caused you harm, unless they properly have an obligation to do something and then they don't do it."

"Harm" does not rely on obligation. It does not rely on law. When people are harmed it is not an automatic condemnation of anyone. It is not illegal to harm someone. Try to understand that.

You said that:

"I agree its easy to harm someone without breaking the law"

How can you pretend that an arena has not caused harm to 45,000 heterosexuals if they drive there and are turned away because they are not gay? So if they have been harmed then why is the person who drives to a massage therapist and gets turned away because he has black hair not harmed? I am not arguing the right of the bigot to turn them away (not at this point). I am asking you if YOU are the judge of when people are harmed...or if THEY ARE?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News