SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (77504)10/13/2003 4:32:50 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
So the question remains; if damages are caused via his services that are based on his 'freedom of conscience,' could 'freedom of conscience' be used as a defense.

If legitimate damages are caused by the manifestation of mojo services, then the question must be answered.

I have already argued that a legitimate claim of 'freedom of conscience' is incompatible with a legitimate claim of damages caused through the services attributed to 'freedom of conscience.'

So, the premise 'if damages are caused' is a false premise to begin with. Which is why, for the last month I have hounded the mojo opponents to qualify their claims of harm being caused by mojo.

The whole 'freedom of conscious' issue seems to turn on this IMO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News