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: TimF who wrote (76129)	10/1/2003 9:21:16 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It could be argued that the hockey team made at least an implied promise to you. I'm quite willing to entertain that argument, but absent that promise they didn't harm you" What do you think we have been talking about? So entertain it...please. There is a default assumption that people will be treated equally in decent society--whether they are getting a hair-cut, buying groceries, or assessing their prostate. When one comes across a provider who has mental/emotional problems and sexual hang-ups...it becomes a discussion. "If however the Hockey team advertises and sells tickets and doesn't provide any sort of notification or announcement of any rules or limitations on those tickets, and you buy one, and then later go to the game and you are not let in because of your sexual preferences (although they usually wouldn't know that) or sex, or race, or hair color, then it could very reasonable be argued that they did not live up to their end of the bargain." You seem to be understanding it a bit better... I believe there is the possibility of moral let-down. You wish to honour a "moral" obligation ("I have been talking about someone having a moral obligation") but morality is relative. Outside of the law..you do not tell the rest of us what harm is or is not. "First of all I wasn't arguing about did they suffer harm or not, I was arguing about did the bigot harm them. The distinction is subtle but not insignificant" The distinction is not significant in the instance we are addressing. My point was not a legal one. I never said that being a jerk was illegal. I only said that being a jerk can be harmful. I have tried to point that out to you. I believe that people have the right to be ass-holes, jerks, and freaks. My point was only that idiots can cause harm--just as good people can cause happiness. That ought not to be hard to understand...

To: TimF who wrote (76129)	10/2/2003 9:54:58 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let me summarize our points of agreement in the light of a new day: Neither of us is speaking to legal accountability or to actionable grounds. We are discussing the issue of harm. My point is that people who offend others do indeed harm them. When I am insulted I am harmed. When I am treated prejudicially I am harmed. When I am discriminated against I am harmed. I will give an example of the latter so that it is clear what my meaning is: I wait for 20 minutes in the grocery line (or in the waiting room of a therapy clinic), and I finally get to the check-out or the counter and the clerk (or secretary) tells me, "We're sorry...we only deal with homosexual customers and women. We don't deal with heterosexual males." I am NOT saying people do not have a default right to certain levels of discrimination. After all, we discriminate when we marry or have sex with another person...we discriminate all day long. Discrimination is usually good. When it is actionable is a question for the law to decide. When it is merely reprehensible is for people to decide for themselves. I have already gone on record as stating that Jewel's discrimination is a gross indignity to blocks of people which mirrors history and which ought to be challenged in the Courts. You may disagree, but I accept your right to disagree. You may not, however, substitute your lack of offense for the legitimate feelings of offense experienced by the person excluded. They are offended regardless of whether or not you are. It is THEIR court case, and your feelings do not inform the picture unless you are a witness or the judge.