marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Yes, it is. Hence my initial "It's good to know two wrongs finally make a right" remark.marshaul wrote:What you guys are suggestting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now.That's essentially my argument.
People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.
The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.
I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.
I'm just trying to be clear on the semantical uses of "right" et al.