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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (390)	8/1/2006 10:50:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

You can say "because I say so" all you want, and to your own children it may have some meaning, but using the coercive power of the state to implement your "because I say so" on people who don't want to live like you, and who are not your children, is ridiculous. And what's wrong with purple hair? It's quite attractive on some people. Would you make that the law of the land as well- "No purple hair- because I say so". The "why nots" that are good why nots have logical answers. The ones that end you up in "Because I say so" territory were probably stupid rules to begin with. If you can't think of a good reason, better not to forbid it, imo.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (390)	8/2/2006 8:59:11 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Our country has become splintered, and there are too many special interest groups posing too many "why nots." I'm tired of them. While I can understand your frustration at seeing your ideal national identity slipping away, I must not only disagree, but also advocate just the opposite. I think the whole idea of freedom is being able to express one's self without harming others. Societal norms change over time and are certainly not set in stone. One of the chief disadvantages of federalization has been the homogenization of all states according to national norms. I think each state should go back to having its own set of mores and customs. Why not allow polygamy in Utah, gay marriage in Mass and legal cannabis in CA, for instance? We would still be one nation, but folks could go where they are most accepted and comfortable. I know this is somewhat utopian, but I think it is desirable and doable.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (390)	8/2/2006 11:38:28 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

JC-- have to admit that "Because I said so" startled me. It isn't even a very good parental technique, but it sure isn't one to use on other adults. It's unfortunate that you are frustrated by people not seeing your POV as the right one, but you have to know that without well-defined and defended opinions, you should never win any argument by adamant authoritarian proclamation . Lumping gay marriage, polygamy and pedophilia together is also kind of amazing, but may offer some insight into how you classify gays and polygamists and why you want to just shout, "Because I said so!" It is far better to ask questions about the effects of changes- as your article attempted with polygamy (though not with terrific success). Of course, you may find that gay marriage causes no more drastic change than mixed ones, the idea of which appalled people not that long ago. It's very hard to separate offended sensibilities from the facts. I am afraid "because I said so" falls on the offended sensibility side unless you continue to offer the reasons. I hope you won't just give up on this!