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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (402474)	5/3/2003 6:30:26 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It will not take the most perceptive reader here to see you’ve simply corrupted goldworldnet’s statement. You claim his saying “Although many laws are not enforced, repealing them would only legitimize behavior that has been shunned and rightly so for millennia., is in fact a claim that laws exist that are not meant to be enforced. False. Goldworldnet here only says exactly what he has said, namely, that though laws exist that are not enforced, they provide political discouragement of certain roundly denounced behaviors. This does not mean the laws were not meant to be enforced, but only that they are not enforced and that they, despite this, serve a valid purpose. And that's the case Santorum has made: it's better to not enforce a law than to repeal it. That is not the case. You are simply in error, as I have clearly shown. That's an offense to the rule of law and to liberty, not to mention mildly tyrannical. I really don't see how you can argue otherwise. You can’t see it because you are severely mistaken about the issue in general. Were you to labor to actually see the point before you, you would be able to better understand the issue. There is no tyranny here at all. There is mercy. Indeed, the tyranny exists in your point of view, where the state is compelled to robotically enforce the law regardless of any mitigating circumstances. This bogus argument [re: polygamy and bestiality] has nothing to do with the case at hand. The argument has everything to do with this issue because it was in fact made by Santorum. That was indeed the thrust of his point. And he is exactly correct. The logic is clear, despite your unsupported claims that it is “bogus.” The law against bestiality was repealed in Texas as was the law against heterosexual sodomy. So Texas does condone bestiality and heterosexual sodomy, just not homosexual sodomy. Texas says yes to real dog lovers. And Texas is being inconsistent. Santorum is not. Our society condones homosexuality every day. Homosexuals legally serve in the military, in government, as teachers, in every aspect of civil society. And society, like Texas, is being increasingly inconsistent, a thing Santorum and others are pointing out. But members of society have a right even to be inconsistent. They do not have a right to by any means force others into their inconsistency. (ding...)