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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238876)	3/17/2002 1:55:12 AM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I just think somebody should give a reasonable answer to my question. I am starting to get really paranoid here. I would prefer a lie: Like oh really I was just thinking 'some milk and cookies would be nice' or 'what about satin and silk?', you know that beats silence.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (238876)	3/17/2002 2:15:31 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>> A society must come to a consensus as to its set of governing laws. Ours are based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which, among other things, states that all men are created equal, and that our citizens should be granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness << i'm sorry, but i think you are confusing the constitution with the declaration of independence. >> How do you arrive at a consensus? What if one person decides that killing is part of their moral code, and that they should be allowed practice it? << society has made a moral judgement that says it is unlawful to commit murder. our laws are not decided by one person. i don't see a problem here. >> Basically, it ensures certain inalienable rights and freedoms. I view it as such: as long as you do not interfere with anothers rights and freedoms, you should be allowed to practice your moral code << fair enough. i believe abortion destroys the right to life of the unborn child, so i am in favor of society legislating against the practice. i believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman that benefits society. i think homosexual unions are detrimental to society so i oppose gay marriage. i think parents have a right to say that they don't want their child indoctrinated with propaganda regarding a lifestyle that goes against their religion. seems pretty simple to me. >> You believe that women are primarily child rearers, << i believe i said that women's primary responsibility should be to their family, not to their "career". that is different from calling them a child rearer. >> and homosexuals are deviants << i said that homosexuality is deviant--i did not say that homosexuals are deviant. >> I believe that it is none of your damned business if a woman refuses to have or raise children in favor of a career << well then i guess it's none of your damned business if i have no respect for homosexuality. i guess it's none of your damned business if i don't want to hire a homosexual. i guess it's none of your damned business if i don't want to allow a homosexual into my private club. but we all know that this is exactly what the homosexual agenda seeks to obtain. they want to force people to accept and respect their lifestyle. >> It's none of your damned business if homosexuals want to marry and share their lives together while enjoying the legal privileges that go with the certificate << you just used the word 'privilege', not 'right'. if it is a privilege than who decides who gets the privilege and who doesn't? society does. yes it is my business. marriage is a public institution, sanctioned by society. therefore society has a right to decide how it wants to structure the institution of marriage. if not, then let's just replace homosexuals with some other choice. "It's none of your damned business if one man and five women want to marry and share their lives together while enjoying the legal privileges that go with the certificate" so are we to assume that you believe in polygamy? >> It's none of your damned business if I worship trees and bay at the moon << just as long as you don't bay too loudly, i will agree. <g> >> No harm, no foul, no mutual tromping of rights or freedoms << society has a right to decide the social environment they live in. if you say no, then i assume you have no problem with people parading around the town square totally naked in front of your children. after all, no harm, no foul, no tromping of rights or freedoms? >> I cannot yell Fire! in a crowded theater, even if my religion says I must, without violating the rights of others to a safe movie experience << if your only threshold for violating someone else's freedoms is physical in nature, then i would assume that you are in favor of legalizing drugs, legalizing public nudity, legalizing cross burning in one's yard, etc. in fact, you should not be opposed to not only nudity in public, but sex as well. after all, sex between two consenting adults is not going to hurt or present physical harm to anyone else, right? so let it be said that kevin rose believes it should be legal for two fags to engage in sodomy in front of his children. that is the argument you have presented, unless you'd like to clarify. >> Once you understand the difference, you'll understand the basic principle of Democracy << perhaps you will eventually come to understand that democracy is simply not enough to make a nation thrive. hitler was elected in a democracy. freedom only works when there is moral restraint. to that end, society has a right to set reasonable limits on freedoms for the greater good. that is the basic principle of our founding, and maybe if i give you a few quotes, it will help you to understand the difference. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --Alexander Hamilton "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." --Thomas Jefferson "To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." --Theodore Roosevelt "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God…religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." --James Madison "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion?" --George Washington