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 (77057)	10/9/2003 1:48:17 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"That was acknowledged by everybody (except perhaps Solon)." I acknowledged there were issues of conscience. But I gave my opinion that their was no justification for conscience as a defence against overt harm of others. I acknowleged that conscience as a defense has been allowed in the avoidance of participation in war (for instance). So far as I know it cannot be used by a bigot, a racist, a thief, or a pervert, to justify whatever kinds of active harm such people wish to do. Thought and the freedom of belief is something we all cherish. Therefore, there is something incredibly ironic about someone wishing to claim freedom to keep others from thinking sexual thoughts--as if that were even in his control. I know it has sometimes been used in the past to actively harm others. But under present day morals and social mores it would seem very unlikely. I know there was a case in Canada where a print shop refused to do business with homosexuals because they believed they were the spawn of Satan or something. I think it went to the Supremes, and for some reason I can't recall how it was disposed. I must run for the day. I will look it up when I get back.