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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (14524)	5/26/2001 10:00:54 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't care what you mean by mature, unless you mean lacking in any of the characteristics which distinguish humans from computers. As it reads, your expression of this specified concern (or lack thereof) reads like gibberish to me. If there was some important point there, you could always try again. They will either need the services of a third person (a lawgiver) or one will exert his will over the other, either by use of superior force or by use of superior intellect, and the other will feel abused. Nonsense! You are talking about the irrational and immoral people who are the primary users of those services! I have never needed police, lawyers, or judges to impose their rationality or morality upon individual differences that arise from time to time between my family members and friends. We are all capable of expressing our principles and boundaries, and behaving reasonably toward one another. And none of us are the ideal type that would epitomize my previous illustration. Your implication (that people resolving conflict through the law are satisfied), or that at least one of them does not feel "abused"--this is based on an unbridled imagination. If neither side in the resolution of a civil dispute feels the adjudicated outcome was unjust, then on what basis could the conflict have been conceived in the first place! Think about it. And if you believe otherwise, you don't know much about people, no matter how you define mature. I know that the kind of people exemplified by my example are of a rank and file representive of those whom never require interference from inferiors of lesser maturity, experience, and reasonableness in order to resolve their different POV's in a rational/moral manner, without either initiating force, or feigning ignorance. You understand that, don't you? If the people in your compass and association are always needing the asssistance of third parties in order to think, or in order to fair, decent, and objective--that is fine for you and yours. BUT, how does that justify the generalization of your non sequitor to the rest of us?? I repeat: REASONABLE, MATURE, MORAL PEOPLE...DO NOT REQUIRE TO HAVE THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS ADJUDICATED BY PEOPLE INFERIOR IN THOSE SPECIFIED QUALITIES. THE RESULT COULD ONLY BE LESS REASONABLE, LESS FAIR, AND LESS MATURE. Or perhaps you believe that reasonable is less fair than stupid; or that cruel is more benevolent than kind? Your rejection of the premise that people can be and act responsible, reasonable, and with compassion and benevolence--without being forced to by some dummy in size 12 boots--well, this is one of the strangest assertions I have ever heard.