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: Solon who wrote (76086)	10/1/2003 7:28:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well...that is the point. You and I don't agree on what a "proper claim" is. Therefore we defer to law which represents the grievances of all people. We defer to the law when and if the issue actually becomes a legal case. But I don't defer to the law when I decide what I think is just or unjust. The issue is not settled by what the law says, the only thing the law settles is how the government will respond to the issue. Don't be silly. If I go into a grocery store and the clerk says that he won't serve me because I am a homosexual--do you think it does me no harm? Do you think if I drive a hundred miles into a city to see a hockey game and the moralist at the door turns me away because I am a woman or a heterosexual that I do not feel harmed?? It might be very likely that you feel that they have harmed you but if you do I would disagree with you, except to the extent that you can make the case that they are failing to honor their commitment. And I think a case could be made there esp. if you had already bought the ticket to the hockey game. But absent that consideration I do not think someone has done harm to you, mainly because no one has done anything to you. That is silly. It is easy to harm someone without breaking the law. Why do you keep bringing up breaking the law? I'm not talking about the law. I agree its easy to harm someone without breaking the law. The things I am disagreing with are 1 - The idea that someone who is not doing anything to you can reasonably be said to have put a burden on you and caused you harm, unless they properly have an obligation to do something and then they don't do it. 2 - The idea that someone selling services to anyone has moral obligation to sell the services to anyone. Tim