Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (77517)	10/13/2003 5:02:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) of 82486

The kinds of harm the opponents continue to bring up, are related to extrapolations about mojo's character or conduct. ... Jewel, Mojo is a fictitious character, an example, a tool to illustrate a concept and enable us to visualize it. In order to illustrate the meaning of freedom of conscious, the character has to be doing something illegal or the character would be of no utility in illustrating freedom of conscience, which presumes defiance of the law. If one wants to answer the question of whether freedom of conscience has any value as a defense against damages, one has to put the character in a position of having done damage. Mojo is not being insulted. He is being used for the purpose for which he was designed, to illustrate a concept. There is no utility in turning him into Peppermint Patty. That doesn't tell us a thing about freedom of conscience.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next