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: cosmicforce who wrote (112207)	5/29/2009 4:30:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541735

So when the solution to the large number of Irish children is presented in a Modest Proposal, we shouldn't consider that it was tongue in cheek and should freely use it to discuss the surplus of aerospace employees or checkers at the Quickie Mart. Okeeedokey. If the argument presented in "a modest proposal", actually did directly (and not just as a matter of sarcasm", express an important and relevant point, that point would still be relevant. However Anatole France intended his words when he spoke them, they could be used otherwise. If he meant them sarcastically, they could also be used straight up. If using them straight is meaningful and relevant, it doesn't cease to be so simply because the initial speaker may have meant them sarcastically. I'm not saying its equal because France said it was equal. (If I was doing that the fact that it may have been sarcastic would matter a lot.), but rather asserting myself that strictly in terms of that one set of prohibitions the law was equal. Would you say a law that forbids begging is a violation of the principle of equal treatment under the law? If so why?