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: TimF who wrote (3736)	11/24/2002 11:53:21 AM
From: Solon	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?" You say..."No" *Thankyou! That proves that you agree that a government which is sometimes arbitrary (and THAT* is propositional between us--and not factual) is NOT an arbitrary Government!** :-) "If it is not limited by them then it is free to act in any way it wants" SORRY...NOT! The Government IS limited by law. The ability to sucessfully break the law (as you claim they have done) does not change that! Many people are criminals. It does not entail that the law is arbitrary. If I ground you for the night and you still sneak out the window to go to a party and drink cheap brandy and get S---faced..it does not mean my home rules are arbitrary--LOL! ____________________ "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." TIM...why are you obfuscating?? I introduced the idea of you not defining what was right for the group. You said: "However I doubt that your opinion would extend to the point of considering every law just or every violation of a law wrong. If it does I disagree with that opinion" I SAID: "That is not what I said. I simply made the obvious point that individuals (such as yourself) do not define what is right for the social group--not unless you are a dictator with the appropriate preponderance of weapons..." Now what I said is very very clear...RIGHT?? I am referring to the fact that the group has decision making authority and power which trumps the individual authority UNLESS the individual is a dictator. I was NOT challenging your right to an individual opinion..RIGHT?? I was NOT challenging your autonomy...RIGHT?? What I said and what I meant was very clear..WAS IT NOT?? Then what is all this pretense about that I don't think you have a right to an opinion?? My original point stands: "You do not define what is right for the group. You only define what is right for you." Because my meaning and my assertion stands as it was stated: "That is not what I said. I simply made the obvious point that individuals (such as yourself) do not define what is right for the social group--not unless you are a dictator with the appropriate preponderance of weapons..." If you wish to talk to yourself and pretend that we are talking about your right to an opinion...please indulge yourself, Tim...