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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (3710)	11/21/2002 7:59:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

So is a person who commits one stupid act a stupid person even if he is brilliant 99% of the time? No. And you have not explained why you use your analogy to state that the government is arbitrary rather than NOT arbitrary. It sounds to me like you are being arbitrary. Is that possible? If the government can get around the limits placed on it by law, then it is not really limited by them even if it sometimes (but not anywhere near 99% of the time and perhaps not even a majority of the time) chooses not to exceede them. If it is not limited by them then it is free to act in any way it wants, it is not limited and those who it has power over it can not count on it obeying any limit it is supposed to have. Hence it is arbitrary. I did not mean that your opinion did not count in the group dynamic, or that it was unimportant, or that it had no merit I didn't think you meant those things. I wasn't even talking about any group dynamic. The group may consider your opinion, but it will decide for itself what it considers to be best for itself. Of course. You may agree or disagree with them, but you do not have the power to define group goals and values. Now power is needed as I am not imposing my defintion on anyone. If I was to insist that they accept my definition then I would need power. Regardless of what the group decides, you still have your opinion. But your opinion does not determine what the group believes and values. I never said that it did. You do not define what is right for the group. You only define what is right for you. No I can define what is right for the group. This definition IS only my opinion. The group does not have to accept the definition. As I said in my last post - It it (my defintion) of (morality for the group). Not (my definition for the group) of (morality). Let alone (the groups definition) of morality. In other words I look at what I would see as proper or improper moral action for the group (or the state, because this started as a discussion on the actions of government) and form an opinion. It is my own definition for the group. Not the groups defintion (defintition of the group) Tim