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: jlallen who wrote (58797)	8/18/1999 6:55:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well here is where you and I will obviously have to agree to disagree. There is always a flip side of an argument. You may claim race and religion are always off-limits, but if this is true then it should always be off-limits from every angle. If race and religion are off-limits, then folk should not throw their race and religion in other folks faces as arguments, essentially saying that their race or religion is sufficient support for "self-evidence." When a guy says something is self-evident, he essentially claims all else to be hogwash. The term "self-evident" when used in a moral debate, is a remarkably bigoted term. And when one attempts to support it with subjective support (claiming it objective), one invites a remarkably brutal assault of the support. Do a thread search on the term "Quran," and you will see how brees throws his crap up all the dang time as an argument. Also note the response. Folk hardly address it because they know other folk will get all uncomfortable if they do. But brees got exactly what he deserved. Had he used it with someone else I would not have said anything. I only responded to him in the most logical way possible, considering the "support" I lobbied against.