Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (80881)	7/14/2004 2:39:37 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 82486

"There is an important distinction to be drawn between doing something to harm someone, and not doing something to help them." I am surely trying to be sensitive to that difference. But recognizing that things are different is not the same as insisting they do not share common elements. Negligence (NOT doing something, as you say) has innumerable degrees of culpability. At times it is rather innocent; and at times it amounts to criminality. So the question is not whether not doing something to help someone or whether impeding the ability of someone to purchase essential goods and services is potentially a criminal offense--that fact is fairly obvious to most people. But the question is WHEN does discrimination against others reach criminality rather than mere inconvenience, and how ought laws be enacted to fairly draw that distinction. dictionary.reference.com "State laws - probably constitutional in most cases" Then I guess human rights legislation by State Governments doesn't violate your Constitutional rights. "It doesn't say anything about protecting these rights" Saying they may not be denied or disparaged is about as protective as one can get. If I tell you that Bill, Susan, and Christine live in my house, and if I tell you that there are others I have not named and that they are not to be denigrated or debased or considered the lesser for want of being named...that ought to tell you something. Of course those rights not enumerated ARE being explicitly protected when the very Constitution POINTEDLY (and with the care and attention of endless discussion and debate) says they SHALL NOT be disparaged or denied. But I suppose if someone is intent on not seeing any water underneath a bridge, then for them there is no water. "Slavery was not abolished by the 9th amendment either directly or through some judicial reinterpretation of what rights the 9th covers. It was abolished by the 13th amendment" I am really sorry if my words were so clumsy as to lead you to the sincere conviction that I was in some way suggesting that slavery was abolished by the ninth amendment. What I said was: "At one time owning slaves was a basic “right”. It was so strongly believed to be so, that one of the bloodiest wars in human history was fought on that basis. Now most people no longer consider the owning of slaves to be their right." And what I meant was that before the 13th amendment the right for Blacks to be exempt from slavery was NOT enumerated. So people DID have rights that were not enumerated in the Constitution. "Most anti-discrimination/anti-racism laws don't affect the essential capacity of people to be citizens under the constitution" Out of millions of people at risk of discriminatory treatment...not a single one of them would agree with you. Because all of them--and all of us--have benefitted greatly from laws (which you admit are Constitutional in all States). All are allowed to better reap the "Blessings of Liberty" as intended by the Constitution for all citizens. Why would Constitutional laws NOT improve the general welfare and the Blessings of Liberty?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next