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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (229221)	5/1/2007 9:30:10 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You've been around angry mothers (mothers who are actually mothers, not just "mothas"), right? The problem when you get angry and are worried about your child is that you aren't very logical at that moment, so I think Euterpe and I both agree that people who are in that state should not set the law, nor should they get to act with impunity just because they are in that state. I have always said (despite what Michael/numbers says), that I would not throw out the constitution so that I could stop some "ticking time bomb" silly hypothetical. For that he said he'd call social services on me so my kids could be taken away- talk about nuts. We all know that we can, and might, act irrationally, and fairly violently, and probably illegally, if we thought our kids were in danger- but you never want people in that position to be able to make laws, or act with impunity. And I don't think people who express an opinion like mine should be threatened with child welfare services. The "ticking time bomb" hypo is an improbable situation that does not justify throwing out our constitution- or so many people think, and expressing that opinion should not open you up to threats and harassment- imo, of course.

To: Elroy who wrote (229221)	5/1/2007 10:24:38 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Elroy, That difference is exactly what I was discussing in my previous post. We can't base our laws and ethics on an extreme example that plays on the emotions. A mother's reaction is going to be to save her child when it is in imminent danger if she sees any way at all to do so. But establishing wiretaps, torturing, spying, eroding our freedoms in anticipation of a threat-- making these kinds of decisions is, as you say, entirely different. These are not actions that should be made by a reductio ad absurdum argument, but by a reasoned discussion of risk v. rights. The expression "hard cases make bad law" applies here. By reducing a discussion of principled policy to a "you mean you wouldn't save your own child!" accusation serves more to distort the principle involved than clarify it. Better to start with the principles surrounding the question of torture or wiretapping than to reverse the process (imo). So I guess the answer to your question is- it isn't relevant what I would do in the heat of the moment when my child is threatened. It is the rational and considered policies and ideals we set in place that guide us through those emotional situations and protect us (and others from us).