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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (52801)	8/23/1999 1:11:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You learn a lot that you didn't know before, if you are paying attention. Those who refuse to take advantage of what that box shows us all, and modify the box this way and that to see what happens to their answer, miss a lot, if it's a rule they live by. It is insane that you think it's a bad intellectual thing to do to create a hypothetical that bumps up against the the fact that people don't "like" "admitting that there are conceivable situations where this might be acceptable," and that the fact that "people don't like admitting" something should cause you to get all superior about the effort to get them to do it anyway. [The "this" in the above is having sex they don't want for some purpose; or, as you, Oh self-appointed champion of the intellectually squeamish, (and who IS it you are championing in this dubious way, btw? Are you doing them a FAVOR with this characterization of their position, whoever they may be? I don't THINK so!) put it, so hilariously elegantly and importantly, referring to my selfish cracker Eve and my black/Jewish/handicapped/gay Adam, "People don't like the idea of forcing anyone to surrender control of their own reproductive system."] Well, look, it's after one am again. That must be why I lost control of that sentence. BTW, lest anyone think I'm "browbeating" you Steven, please tell them you don't mind. I think you browbeat me just as much, anyway. Though I think I browbeat your more amusingly than you browbeat me, don't you? Also, it takes more courage to browbeat you than to browbeat me, don't you think? You don't HAVE to reply to this. And I am not going to reply to your reply if you do. Though I often lie about this.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (52801)	8/23/1999 7:49:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

So are you saying that you don't mind hypotheticals, hypothetically, but you didn't like this one? One thing E. left out, which might benefit from being explained, is that lawyers are trained to argue by giving them hypotheticals to argue about, taking one side, and then the other. So, as the daughter of a lawyer, she was probably trained to do that, possibly without realizing it. But no law school hypothetical ever has enough in it to completely solve it, and when I was in law school we got extra points for imaginative solutions which brought in outside possibilities to flesh out the solution. E.g. the example I am so fond of, the man hitting a child. If that's all the hypo is, it's impossible to solve creatively. You have to say, well, could the child be on fire? Does he have something stuck in his throat? Does he have an insect on his body? Is the man the child's father and is he disciplining the child? Has he gone too far, and should he be sent for counseling? Is he a stranger assaulting the child? And that's how you would approach it. If you automatically assume the obvious, assault, that's not wrong, but it's not a good solution. I like arguing hypos, myself. But then, I am a lawyer.