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 (80804)	6/25/2004 6:43:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"No, but not everything that is wrong should be illegal" I have never argued that point. But it "don't include an assault on anyone" is NOT a legitimate defense of your position. It does not have to include an assault to be either illegal or wrong. "I said the acts they forbid are not unconsitutional. The acts are not forbiden by the constitution, but you called them unconstitutional." I don't know if I said that; but certainly, if it is NOT unconstitutional to forbid those acts, then those acts (of certain kinds of brutal discrimination) have no Constitutional basis. Otherwise, their prohibition would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Therefore, YOU cannot BOTH support the laws as Constitutional and the actions which they prohibit as constitutional. So as I said...go to your High Court. When they will agree with you, then I will need to contemplate the rightness of my position.