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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71542)	8/4/2003 6:52:24 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Where did you sneak immutable class into the discussion? You started it with a plaint against the married couple who got two-fers at the health club. Message 19175974 Marriage is not an immutable characteristic. You're free to get married to any guy who's willing to marry you. (Which leads to a question: if there are any people who are born SO ugly, violent, and socially deviant (all genetically based characteristics, btw) that nobody will every marry them, does that invalidate the whole concept of marriage since they won't be able to partake of it because of immutable characteristics??? Okay, that was a tangent, you can ignore it if you want to, but it's a point.) I said that two people could get the same thing as one in lots of different contexts. And you responded with "C'mon. Do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be bothered if the people in line ahead and behind you at the grocery store got their blueberries for a buck but you had to pay two for yours? Seems to me I recall you being pretty tight with a buck. <g>" Nothing at all about immutabable characteristics there. Now you suddenly stick that in. Bad girl. <g>