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 (80774)	6/23/2004 9:48:50 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 82486

"These contradictory statements are all yours" They were not contradictory. Your comment is sheer gibberish. "However, I see that you are now recognizing ‘Freedom of Conscience’ as a natural right" This is just more posturing on your part. I have written thousands of posts on SI and never once have I ever said that thought and belief were not inherent rights. If all you intended was the absurdly obvious and simplistic assertion that people have the right to their own moral values then you would not have said "...force me to serve someone or do anything". You were referring to action or behaviour--not simply to belief. So to pretend that I disagreed with freedom of belief is absurd and simply sullies your argument and your character. Our discussion has centered on this haughty and pompous pronouncement you made to the thread: "you do not nor does the government have the natural right or the power to force me to serve someone or do anything to another person in a way that violates my conscience.”" You are asserting a RIGHT to ACT as your personal beliefs dictate regardless of how the rights of others may be affected. I have told you that the right to think capriciously and arbitrarily is an inborn or natural right. But I have also refuted your absurd statement that you have any right to ACT on your conscientious beliefs where they violate either natural rights or societal rights. Your right to ACT in accord with your conscience is a conditional right--the condition being that you do not violate the rights of others. Do you get it yet? "No one’s natural rights ‘trump’ another’s natural rights." We have agreed on that all along (and I herewith initial it for the millionth time); so there is only one more thing to sort out: Is ACTING in accord with your conscience a natural right--irrespective of how damaging your conscientious beliefs may be to others?? Society says it is not. ALL rational people say it is not. All rational people know that nobody has the right to act on the caprice of personal belief, as such a principle would be ludicrous in the extreme and would negate all other rights--whether natural or societal. Now, instead of responding to this, why don't you just string together some pycho-babble gibberish which hides the point behind a plethora of empty and bizarre phrases?? _______________________________________ Freedom of belief is a natural right. No other right may trump it. But nobody has a right to act unconditionally on their belief. Acting on your belief is not a right because it leaves the action undefined. Actions may be helpful, hurtful, or neutral. Some hurtful actions may be permitted while others may be constrained or punished. All people may BELIEVE as they choose. But none have the right to ACT as they choose--without regard for the rights of others. So to suggest that we cannot (rightfully) prevent actions which harm us is the height of stupidity and arrogance. The Government has both the right and the power to limit your actions regardless of how strongly or conscientiously you feel urged to those actions. BELIEVE IT!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next