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: one_less who wrote (20283)	8/1/2001 6:32:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Criteria number 1 for a standard is that it be measurable. First of all, when you develop a standard, you define the brite line that is the standard first, then you find a way to measure it. You don't see what convenient measures you might have and then pick the best one and set the standard there. A marriage certificate is a very convenient measure, but that doesn't mean that what it represents is a good standard. Secondly, if the standard you set is considered risible by most people intended to be covered by it, it doesn't matter if it's measurable or not because everyone will just ignore it. Third, there's the matter of enforcement of the standard. Say you set the standard as a marriage certificate. Are you going to check to see if people have one? No Or maybe you're going to do a records search on every couple you meet? Couples can say that they're married and you'd never know the difference. So what's the point of having the certificate as the standard. And fourth, also on enforcement, what are you going to do to people who violate the standard, even assuming you'd know who they were? I suppose you could shun them. Gee, I bet that would really hurt them. Not. Maybe you'd send them to jail. Like there's plenty of room in the jails for fornicators. Brees, there's no way to enforce your standard. People are going to have sex, which is a private process, based on their own sense of what's appropriate. If you want to elevate their standard of behavior, you'll have to find something you can sell to them or they will just ignore you and do their own thing. The acceptance and enforcement of the standard is entirely voluntary and based on a million different interpretation of your standard. It seems to me that what Neo's proposing is a much higher level of behavior than what we have now. You may not think it's perfect, but realistically it's the best you can hope for. It has at least a chance of being accepted by a critical mass of individuals. You won't find one percent of the population that would accept a hands-off until marriage standard, I'd bet, at least among those with a working sexual apparatus. Isn't a glass half full better than nothing? Karen