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: Ilaine who wrote (82153)	6/20/2000 12:09:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Okay, let's go back to fairness. I still don't think we have an agreed definition of fairness. I agree that fairness and equality aren't the same. Inequality can at times be fairer than equality. But that doesn't get us to what fairness IS.

To: Ilaine who wrote (82153)	6/20/2000 12:10:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The only danger is having the hard core libs line up on one side and the conserves on another. Then the discussion ends up about that instead of the concept of fairness. I, however, agree that there is a place for lib and conservative definitions in the discussion about fairness here is why: Fairness is rules based. As long as the rules are agreed upon and you are following them, you can be considered a fair person. (Conservative) However, sometimes a new agreement may be needed when a "rule" is seen as obsolete or poorly drafted and so a liberal interpretation of a persons behavior may be necessary. (Liberal)