Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (729)	9/7/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Actually, since you have never been shy in mentioning it, and since it is easily inferred from your attacking those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on people, as you term it, I did not think that I was making a revelation at all. Since I spend a lot of time hopping threads, I didn't really give any thought to where I was in making the remark.... I am sorry that I was inconsiderate, but that is about it....

To: E who wrote (729)	9/7/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

I believe I know the answer to the question, and I certainly know that my being your "favorite" atheist has nothing whatever to do with it; you have produced a naked non sequitur; but it would be useful for me to hear from you why you wanted that information posted here. Thanks for posting that E. I would like to point out that I in the past have been subject to something similar, where a discussion was ongoing between myself and others here (third parties), and Neocon chose to "set the stage" so to speak, by posting a set of links to previous posts of mine that were pretty fervently pro-choice (where I was in the middle of an argument or whatever). It was in no way an accurate reflection of my entire body of posts on the matter, and was presented with a sort of "I'm just trying to help out with some history" cast. I should be posting this to Neocon but wanted to reply to you since I am quoting you (I don't like it when people quote me and don't reply to me). I consider this behavior to be somewhat deceitful and indicative of an agenda, fwiw.

To: E who wrote (729)	9/7/1999 1:17:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6418

I ask because it is my belief that if you speak fully and truthfully, it will reveal that your opposition to abortion at any stage is solely a product of your religious beliefs, and that you are working from that starting point to build a non-religious sounding rationale for forcing your religious beliefs onto atheists and others who don't share them, and proposing to get the government to help you do so. I try to avoid getting into the specifics of the abortion debate, but your point is broader than that. You seem to suggest that it is wrong for a person or group to try to impose laws based on their religious beliefs on people who may not share those beliefs. I prefer the term moral to religious, since you would probably object to the suggestion that you have religious beliefs but would probably accept the suggestion that you have moral beliefs. True? The problem with your objection is that virtually all of our substantive laws (as opposed to procedural laws, such as whether you go on green and stop on red or vice versa) are based on moral beliefs. In every case, they represent the imposition by one segment of the population of their moral beliefs on another segment of the population. Laws against theft, murder, rape, spousal abuse, etc. all represent one set of moral beliefs, and impose those on people who do not universally share them. (If everybody truly followed the same moral principles, there would be no need for a law because nobody would do the wrong things. Laws are only needed where at least some people have or can be expected to do something the government thinks they shouldn't or not to do something the government thinks they should.) It is perfectly possible to imagine, for example, a society where there was no such thing as theft because there was no such thing as property ownership. It is perfectly possible to imagine a society where might truly did represent right -- where the stronger had every right to take what she wanted from the weaker. Many parts of nature work this way. It is also perfectly possible to imagine a society where killing any life form, including spiders and mosquitos, would be illegal. Our society does not impose these moral values through law, though it could. What's the point? The point is that the whole principle of substantive law is the imposition by one faction of its moral beliefs on another faction. To go back to your post, then, if Neocon's moral belief is that abortion represents murder, whether that comes from his religious beliefs or not he is perfectly entitled to try to enact that belief into law and impose on you and others who may disagree with it. That's the function and process of law, and to shrink from it is to be false to (and dishonest about) what substantive law is all about.