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 (76163)	10/7/2003 1:26:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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." In that case they could be considered to have done harm you by deceiving you. They set up a situation where it would normally be assumed that you would be treated in a certain way and they did not follow through on their implied commitment. ...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. There are certainly entitled to consider it reprehensible if they want to. In some similar cases I might also find it reprehensible. The disagreement was at least as much, probably more, about the meaning and implications of saying someone has done harm to someone else then it was about whether discrimination in the examples we discussed was a bad or even reprehensible thing. 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. I may not substitute my feelings for theirs nor would I try. I am rather asserting that logically if some one has done nothing to them then that someone has not done harm to them, and that their feelings do not change this fact. In some of the hypothetical situations I was talking about I don't think that harm was done to the person discriminated against. In your hypothetical, if there was harm done, it was the harm of not living up to a commitment. They are offended regardless of whether or not you are. Of course. If they feel offended my lack of the same emotion doesn't change what they feel. It is THEIR court case, and your feelings do not inform the picture unless you are a witness or the judge. What does this have to do with court cases? I haven't been talking about court cases. Tim