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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (14816)	11/13/1998 5:02:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 67261

jbe - careful - I think someone has infiltrated Abdul Haq's user ID - whoever it is just told me Tonto has taken over the justice system in this country! <vbg> Mr. K.

To: jbe who wrote (14816)	11/13/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Well written. If I can stop laughing at Mr. K's comment I'll try to respond. <<How can we meet these two conflicting needs absolutely and simultaneously?>> Exactly, you can't even begin to rectify the current system without some superordinate philosophy as a foundation. How do you like the way I avoided using the words "moral" and "principle."

To: jbe who wrote (14816)	11/13/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<How can we meet these two conflicting needs absolutely and simultaneously?>> The definition for justice is an ideal, not expected to be achieved in a temporal universe such as the one we live in, where ideal merely represent an unattainable form or direction. You can, however, establish achievable goals based on a direction that is ideal. You can also measure progress toward goal achievement which I stated is a mearure of effectiveness. I stated that we can agree the justice system of America is ineffective. I may have been misrepresented the folks here but in all the low places where I hang out it is the consensus. Now, if we have no ideal your example of a conflicting definition works. Then if you want justice, you have to ask according to "Who's" definition for what they think they need or want at any given moment. Very problematic, I agree.