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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (109378)	8/1/2003 11:36:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I won’t argue the point here; it’s too wildly OT. I assure you, though, that arguing the point would be about as hard as smacking a one-winged fly Won't play, will just assure everybody of superior skill? Thanks a lot. The point, in cased you missed it, was that legal tinkering with the definition of "marriage" makes many people uneasy. I said, "so far as that, it's hard to argue" I really wouldn't have thought it was a controversial statement. I wonder if Mr. Warren believes that the right to pursue happiness is inalienable, or if he believes that the state should see to it that his neighbors pursue their happiness solely in directions compatible with his personal religious convictions. It's very easy to accuse anyone who doesn't think that "societal norms" is an oxymoron of seeking to saddle all of us with "his personal religious convinctions", but it does rather side-step the question of whether society did have, has, or ought to have, any legally enforced norms, and what the cost might be of too hastily changing them. Warren actually has a lot in common with den Beste. Both put style above content No, neither of them do; both write to put their own opinions of the current political situation forth. Style is secondary, particularly with den Beste, who is not a very good writer. You just don't like their content.