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 (77175)	10/10/2003 11:29:07 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is why, for example, the exceptions for small landlords exists -- not because the discrimination is any less wrong, but because the price of enforcement isn't worth the societal benefit.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77175)	10/10/2003 11:33:47 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Change of topic. I found this article absolutely fascinating. If you think about it even briefly, this could explain a lot of the pathology of Silicon Investor, which is clearly a social community, at least in many coffee shop threads. It may explain why when posters are intentionally shut out of discussions or threads they can react in what appears to be irrational excess. They may be suffering actual pain. msnbc.com A rejected lover’s broken heart may cause as much distress in a pain center of the brain as an actual physical injury, according to new research. CALIFORNIA RESEARCHERS have found a physiological basis for social pain by monitoring the brains of people who thought they had been maliciously excluded from a computer game by other players. Naomi I. Eisenberger, a scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles and the first author of the study to be published Friday in the journal Science, said the study suggests that the need for social inclusiveness is a deep-seated part of what it means to be human. “These findings show how deeply rooted our need is for social connection,” said Eisenberger. “There’s something about exclusion from others that is perceived as being as harmful to our survival as something that can physically hurt us, and our body automatically knows this.” ...

To: Lane3 who wrote (77175)	10/10/2003 2:31:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Even if we "needed" a bureaucracy to oversee it (in that the abuses were common) civil libertarians might worry that the cure was worse than than the original problem. I would worry that. We have enough government intrusion into our lives as it is- and even though I approve of some of it, I don't want a lot more. So even if I don't like the idea of someone refusing to take certain customers (for whatever reason he or she refuses them- I don't really care why- those customers have still been refused) I am not willing to do anything about the problem, since I think the competing benefit of keeping government out of the minutiae of our lives is more important still. That is, of course, simply a personal opinion. It's what I prefer. I could certainly see how some people might want the government involved- many people are obviously interested in having the government much more involved in their lives than I am.