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: average joe who wrote (16788)	6/16/2001 7:45:45 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Leaving aside (for a minute) the specific issue of abortion funding;" Why, can't you juggle more than one concept at once? I KNOW how to juggle, Mr. Cartwright<g>. Your comment tells me plainly that you do NOT! I can juggle oranges, eggs, or turnips. I know how to set things aside without dropping them. Your responsibility is to take care of yourself lest you become a burden. I agree. This stands alone as a principle. It has nothing to do with how we, as a society, decide to approach the "burdens." There can be no pragmatism without principles. I don't know what you are thinking about, or what point you are making. Pragmatism eschews principles in favor of action and empirical feedback. It holds ultimate truth to be unknowable. Of course, one could speak of "principles" of pragmatism if one wished to. Taxpayers who fund the whole process have social and psychological needs which should supersede the abusers of the system. We can talk about "shoulds" till the cows come home. I brought up pragmatism to make the point that the cows AIN'T home--and there ain't no milk. No! Those who damage and steal and hurt others should pay, they steal they should pay back they rack up court costs they should pay back. YES! YES!! YES!! This is why I brought up pragmatism. They ain't paying, and they can't pay, and they won't pay. They don't got the scratch. If by pay you mean, we lock them up, then FINE. As I said--you pay TWICE. If people were held responsible for their actions they would act responsibly. NO. People will act responsibly only when they VALUE responsibility. Swinging a pick ibn a chain gang because you've paid for some size 12 boots--this has nothing to do with the concept of social cooperation and shared values. Soul? Why put that spin on it? Keep it in practical economic terms Padre, keep it between the pines, this is not a religious discussion My reference was to a religious question, and that is why I used the word "soul." Religion is recognized as a fundamental right. Violating and forcing another's conscience is not something I can support. Just as I don't support FORCING someone to have a baby--I don't support FORCING someone else to pay for an abortion. Now, if you don't mind--it is time to do the foxtrot.