I don't see how I was supporting any absolute. But doesn't matter. You agree with me, just because someone can, doesn't mean someone should. i.e. their is something other than the law that should determine one's actions.
Umm, you've been arguing this whole thread that they shouldn't be suing because suing is somehow unethical in some cases. Now, since you agree that suing can be ethical, then what exactly are you arguing about?
And I don't see how the plaintiffs will be happy if the suit is thrown out.
Imperative? Seems too strong a word to me. Not every disagreement has a moral imperative to determine the truth. And this is where we disagree. You see that their was significant harm, or the potential for significant harm, that occurred. I don't.
Well, perhaps they won't be happy, but, at the end of the day, the matter has been resolved. They thought that they had been wronged, and it was shown that they were not. Again, perhaps happy is the wrong word, but, not really the important point.
Now, we get down to brass tacks here. "Significant harm" is not for you or me to determine. That's absolutely not your or my place to decide that. If you think that I have wronged you, that's all that matters. It is in no way for someone else to come along and say, "well, no, you really weren't harmed, you should stop complaining." Again, moral black hole. We have a couple of extremely long threads on En World right now talking about harassment. Your point here is exactly part of the problem. "Oh, well, women shouldn't complain about being harassed, they aren't really being harmed" is very much NOT your decision to make.
You can feel that way all you like, but, it in no way makes it unethical or immoral to sue someone just because someone who is completely unaffected and largely uninformed thinks that someone hasn't suffered enough harm to take things to court.
