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: Neocon who wrote (76728)	10/7/2003 12:32:39 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

" There is a level of persuasiveness that must be achieved that the position is derived from the formation of conscience, either by a religious tradition or by a coherent philosophical worldview......... I refused to play the religious card from the start. The reason is that it can be code, as we know, for something else. We know that there are conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims, Feminists etc. who would prefer women massaging women for the reasons mojo gave in his belief statement. There are people who were once Christians etc who still adhere to the value system but have left the particular religious affiliation for their own reasons. Could a group of people such as this proclaim something like "look, our position is supported fairly universally by conservative moral guidance and we feel strongly about it. We dress conservatively, do not engage in casual sex play such as flirting etc...." Would this be a strong enough case on the grounds of coherent philosophical/religio conservatism that is not associated with a particular religion? Let's assume they had this documented in the service delivery statements of mojo, myrna and their associates.

To: Neocon who wrote (76728)	10/8/2003 3:43:24 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

When I got home tonight and read all the sad crap I decided to post an opinion on it. As to choosing you I simply scrolled back until I found somebody who appeared both puzzled and prejudiced. And your gratuitous insults on the side convinced me that you were just the person who could learn from this! This post is really to reveal the absolute idiocy of Jewels and his "friend"!-- :;-) Neo Freedom of Conscience is never used to justify the commission of an offence. Rather it is used to exempt someone from committing an offence to their conscience based on their religious beliefs. Thus, one substitutes civilian service for military service on conscientious grounds, but one may not break the law such as by racial discrimination (for example) on the grounds that they have internalized such values! Everybody internalizes values. It is not a justification for bigotry! Really, freedom of conscience just extends freedom of religion into the active or political sphere. It is not about justifying antisocial behaviour; it is about recognizing the overweening value society places upon the right to worship and to trust in a higher power. It is pretty much adopted as a fundamental premise that rational values and beliefs are already in place in secular society--and encoded in her laws and regulations. Freedom of Conscience grew out of medieval religious theology and has continued to this day as a religious justification for certain exemptions. It is true that atheists and agnostics have freedom of conscience as well, but there is nothing extraordinary about secular values which qualifies granting of particular exemptions to them on the basis of reason. The intent of freedom of conscience is to acknowledge the privacy and the sanctity of belief--to uphold the a-priori premise that thought is free, and that thought may not be punished. It is not however an absolute freedom to act or to omit--for this reason: Conscience is fallible and is dependent upon: personality, degree of ignorance, inherent ability to empathize or socialize, paucity or surfeit of imagination, and so on. Thus, society does not place the right to conscience ahead of the rights to safety. Society will sometimes exempt someone from the common law on the basis of their belief where it may be shown to be genuine and supported by a pervasive commonality with historical dogma. It is not granted lightly, and it is not normally granted when it actively harms others. If MOHO could get an exemption from massaging women in a public business because of his rather ignorant belief that he has a right to control how they think and feel, then I could get a right to turn away (for instance) Muslims at my restaurant because I don't like the way THEY think and feel! It is ironic that someone should try to justify idiocy by claiming Freedom of conscience to control the thoughts of others! Jewels and Neo would claim conscience to control the SEXUAL thouhts of others! Of course, controling with perhaps 5% accuracy the sexual thoughts of others in a 30 minute session still does not control their thoughts for the rest of their life! But, regardless...how idiotic it is to claim freedom of conscience while you intrude on the rights of others to freedom of conscience--to think and to feel as they wish! Jewels and NEO are just too easy! Some people are just made for ridicule and laughter!! So is society to crawl in front of a bigot when the bigot is useless and feckless at controlling sexual thoughts!? Jewels has shown he can scarcely spell a word, so my expectations of him are not being compromised by his stupidities. Neo, however, can spell and write coherently--so I can only assume that he is taking sides and swallowing SUPID PILLS...and that his sneering is a reflection upon his character! His choice!!! :-)