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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3155)	6/18/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

I did not argue that it is not offensive. I argued that offensiveness to a minority is not alone a sufficient basis to offend the majority...

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3155)	6/18/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Oh, and I did not argue that the novelty of the ruling meant that it was incorrect, merely that it was not a plain inference from the Establishment clause, and therefore could be argued about. Do you suppose that the decisions of the Supreme Court are infallible, just because you agree with a number of them?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3155)	6/18/1999 4:05:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

Putting aside the questions regarding the legality and the possibly offensive nature of posting the 10 C's for a moment. Does anyone really believe that a kid who is a heartbeat from blowing away his classmates is really going to stop and think twice because the 10 commandments are posted above the day's specials in the school cafeteria? Mark