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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (9661)	1/24/2006 3:06:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

I think when you're barring people from service because of the color of their skin, or their sex, or a disability, it's very hard to defend I agree, and I don't think it should be defended. However refusing to defend or support such actions is not the same as supporting making them illegal. I also don't support married people cheating on their spouses by having unprotected sex with many partners without the agreement or the knowledge of the spouse. However I don't think either adultery or unprotected sex should be illegal. But encouraging people to act on their hate, just makes other people think it's ok. I don't think not having something be illegal is encouragement of it, or generally makes most people think it is ok. I don't think most people think getting falling down drunk when they go home every night is ok, despite the fact that it is legal. I don't think most people think racist rants are ok, despite the 1st amendment. I don't think there is any "obvious reinforcement" of an activity just because the activity is no outlawed. Tim

To: epicure who wrote (9661)	1/24/2006 4:14:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

But encouraging people to act on their hate, just makes other people think it's ok. It could play out that way, I suppose. I'm more hopeful than you. It could play out that those who act on their hate are shunned and the lesson that comes from it is that it's not OK. Preferring to let them close the store to people of your race, just because they don't like you, seems absolutely nuts to me. We have competing rights here. We took away the rights of property owners because the situation was so horrific that we couldn't let it stand. I supported anti-discrimination laws because I thought we needed to shock the system rather than let things evolve at their own pace. I was prepared to sacrifice the property rights for a greater good, civil rights. You know I don't like federal restriction on liberty. I accept them only as long as they are essential. I don't know that they're essential any more. It's not that I find discrimination any more tolerable than I ever did, it's that I think we can give people back their property rights now without reverting and that we should try. Sooner or later you have to take the training wheels off the bike for the biker to thrive.