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: Lane3 who wrote (23438)	8/20/2001 5:05:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

With the limited search engine, and the necessity of following out arguments to catch their tone, it is too hard a slog to prove all of this. I have posted a few things she said about justice, not because they express distaste, but because they express her view of the arbitrary nature of justice very well. She does, I admit, think it can be useful, in this context. There are other occasions when she has expressed a high degree of disdain for people who have strong beliefs, or who believe differently than she about these topics, which certainly implies a distaste or contempt for the beliefs themselves. To your credit, you have not expressed yourself nearly as belligerently or snidely on these matters. Some of the experience Christopher or brees or myself had with her was on Feelings, and it is true that she was behaving better the last few months before her last fight with me, so maybe you have seen less of it from her. One thing I don't altogether understand is this: if justice is just whatever society happens to say it is, at a given time and place, why does anyone bother to take offense at characterizing her as having a distaste for it. I mean, she could be a pioneer, someone who is at the vanguard of the emerging morality. With only an arbitrary measure, what does it matter?