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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (74916)	9/16/2003 5:24:14 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

The concern is whether or not "freedom of conscience" is a protection afforded to individuals, as neocon claims. Last I checked, and as the discussion wore one, he didn't seem to be claiming that. He accepted my points about conscientious objectors and indicated he didn't think your therapist merited that status. And he also accepted that there was no significant distinction between freedom of conscience and just plain freedom. Posters, including me, have made reference to it, but I still haven't seen any indication that it is any more than a vague and charming notion.

To: one_less who wrote (74916)	9/16/2003 5:30:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Maybe it would be helpful if you were to articulate clearly and succinctly just what this principle is that your massage therapist is standing on. There's been a lot of discussion about a lot of "stuff," but where the principle is among all that stuff is not clear. The only thing I heard that sounded like a principle is that men shouldn't touch women other than their wives intimately out of respect for women, although that was only mentioned in passing. If that's the principle, I've already said that I can understand and respect it, although I wouldn't want it to be the rule rather than the exception. I don't recall hearing any principle regarding gays.