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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4303)	5/4/2000 7:14:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 9127

Desires can be in conflict but rights cannot be. One women that has two suitors They each have opposing desires but, the success of one is not a violation of the others rights. HAHAHAHAHAHA... Ever heard of Menage a trois ? This would lead to believe that the desire of the woman can interfere with the [supposed] rights of the suitors This ridiculous example shows how ridiculous your [supposed] logic operates. Your thinking process is in conflict with your right to speak, AND your desire to be heard. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Should we assume the woman accepts the "rights" of the suitors ? or is she just standing there "waiting" ? P.s. What happens if one MAN has two lady suitors ? Are the "rights" of the lady suitors in conflict with the desires of the man ? p.s.s. What if the suitors and the subject of the suitors are all from the same sex ? HAHAHAHAHAHA

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4303)	5/4/2000 9:59:00 PM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Respond to of 9127

You have two neighbors, one has the right to blast his stereo while the other has the right to peace and quiet. In your opinion whose rights have precedence?

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (4303)	5/4/2000 10:41:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Here then is one example: Person A buys a vase at a second hand shop in complete innocence. Turns out the vase was stolen, but person A had no way of knowing that, and acting in complete innocence bought the vase. Person B originally owned the vase. Both people really have a right to the vase. The law recognizes the prior claim of person B- since you cannot take good title from a thief even though you are innocent yourself. But all I see is a conflict of "rights" resolved in the most expedient and prudent way for public policy. It's a choice between innocents- they happen all the time. Two people need the same kidney- they are both equally sick. A mother will die if her baby is to be born. The right to free association versus the right to travel. and on and on and on Your imagination is clearly limited if you can't think of at least a hundred examples.