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 (81869)	6/16/2000 6:07:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Thank you, Steve, that is the sort of reasonable argument I would expect of you. There are two proportionalities here: one, a sense of responding with due seriousness to the crime; the other, a sense of maintaining some sort of adequate differentiation among crimes. Otherwise, the main point of punishment is lost, and we become arbitrary, either hanging people for stealing (which is unjustly harsh), or giving them 15 years for premeditated murder (which is unjustly lenient). I argue that simple murder should be met with life imprisonment (otherwise we are not maintaining the first proportionality) and that taking away the chance of parole is an inadequate differentiation between simple murder and truly horrific crimes. As it stands, our calibration is crude, and we cannot do much to reflect levels of heinousness, but at least we can maintain a crude distinction between simple murder and "murder most foul". The only defense against sheer arbitrariness that I can see is such reasoning. Now, I did not argue execution is therefore the right conclusion. I argued that we begin with the premise that it is fitting, and then work from there. If it can be shown that there are sufficient reasons, either moral or practical, to not exercise our right to execute, then we should curtail the practice. Absent such a showing, we should continue to execute. That, to me, is the conservative position, because we need no practical justification to execute.........

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81869)	6/16/2000 6:41:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Now, I am in a position to tie the discussion of art into the discussion of justice. To me, reputation is a serious matter, and elementary justice requires that one be careful in praise or blame, according to one's best information. People who are casual with the reputations of others, or go out of their way to harm someone's reputation, are acting badly. Malicious gossip is evil, and so is falsely taking credit. The reason I am so "worked up" about fair comment on artists is a sense of obligation to know what I am talking about, and make sure that my opinions about artists are responsible. Although there is room for error and revision, I do not think that artistic reputation is arbitrary, and thus I think that those who do not know much about it should be diffident about opining, and those who do know much about it should take care to praise or blame as justly as possible.............