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 (80797)	6/25/2004 6:21:01 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"and don't include an assault on anyone." Does everything that is wrong have to qualify as an assault? "Specific laws forbid such actions, so the discriminatory actions could be said to be "illegal" but not "unconstitutional"" If the laws forbidding illegal actions of the sort being discussed are unconstitutional, then you may have them nullified or amended to conform to the Constitution. "Similarly discriminating in hiring based on race may be wrong, it may be unjust, it probably will be found to be illegal if someone can prove you did it, but it isn't abuse." I would consider "1 : a corrupt practice or custom" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abuse&x=18&y=17) to sufficiently comport with "wrong", "unjust", or "illegal". So my original charge that you "Basically"..."are asking for the RIGHT to be abusive toward people without rational cause" stands. Something "wrong", "unjust", or "illegal" is definitely abusive. And race, religion, and colour are not rational grounds to abuse anyone.