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: The Philosopher who wrote (75014)	9/18/2003 3:03:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But where you and I separate is whether the exercise of one's conscience should be cost free. I think I get it now. The freedom of conscience part is that no one can make you take an action that's against your conscience. The corollary is that neither does your conscience entitle you to take an action contrary to the rules for all of us. Which would mean that freedom of conscience is really the freedom to be left alone to do your own thing as long as you don't cause problems. Which, once again, is the same as just plain freedom. No? Wind is picking up now...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (75014)	9/18/2003 3:08:48 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"Your argument seems to me to be that he should be free to follow his conscience, even though that will have a negative impact on other people, and not pay a social price for that." You may want to take a second look. I chose this as a test case for good reason. His position is warrented because as a matter of conscience he refuses to do something that he views as harmful to individuals and society. He has thoughtfully considered the impacts on the participants therapists/clients and determined that the compromised circumstance sensual nature of the service is not as safe as it is promoted to be. The emerging research supports his view. If you extend "negative impact" to include that his view point is offensive to people who like the cultural status quo, then I disagree. Thats's like the stupid TOU criteria "otherwise offensive." Too broad to be meaningful. the principle that we should get to exercise our consciences or our desires without cost. This is far from my position. "she had every right to play her music as loudly as she wanted to, and if people didn't like it, tough. Different venue, same principle. Absolutely not the same principle. This is a matter of being free to do anything I feel like, knowing that it is harmful to others. There was a book a few years ago titled "children without a conscience." The title made me gasp. I am starting to think we are living in a society without a conscience. The people on this thread have certainly demonstrated how alien the concept is to them. Sorry, but you don't seem to get it.