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 (77065)	10/10/2003 5:41:40 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Very lengthy discussions were carried on regarding harm or potential for harm that were specifically related to the mojo hypothetical (the real one, not the one you concocted)." That is a phoney remark! I adhered to your MOHO presentation to the letter. "No direct harm was ever identified." More nonsense. All of us agreed that being treated like a piece of crap was harmful. The question was never whether it hurts people to be treated like shit. The question was only whether or not it was actionable in the scenario you provided, and whether or not it might be morally justified to hurt people like that. As far as I know, the verdict was unanimous that mistreating people is ignorant, hurtful, and actionable. That, at least, is my opinion. We can easily check the opinions of others on the thread. "Likewise, you and chris shouting over the discussion, "mojo's a bigot" has absolutely no basis." It was never shouted by me and I never saw it shouted by CH. The basis, though, is obvious: You defined him as a bigot. "Regarding conscientiously objecting to participation as a fighter in war (which I have done during Viet Nam, and also support), we can associate direct harm, since the enemies of our people are waging a deadly battle, killing and maming the people we have an allegiance to, while we sit idly by." Try to get with the program. I could spend 3 months at the beach in a tent and save a life. My eschewal of that is not actionable or a cause for criticism. Freedom of conscience is about exempting people from certain societal standards when their beliefs are apart from the social norm but nevertheless inform a mindset which relies in a penultimate spiritual sense on the particular issue in question. ALL people have freedom of conscience. It has NOTHING to do with the right to overt acts of harm. You cannot justify any interference against the fundamental freedom of another by this expedient. We only sanctify the effects of belief within certain parameters. Thus, it does not matter if you believe my house is your house. You will be turned away... We all have freedom of conscience under the law. The special exemptions are extraordinary dispensations based on certain ancient and fundamental values which have been ionstrumental in certain religions. These special exemptions ought never be granted to bigots, for obvious reasons. Sometimes essential moral values hang on a cusp: for instance...is killing ever justified. There are many answers to this question. Some justify it not at all, some in self defense...some, otherwise. In instances of freedom of conscience these rare moral conflicts are important in that they sometimes butt up against State Laws. It was decided lonng ago that freedom of conscience would not entertain overt harm to others. Thus, you can think that killing others for food is good, but you will not be exempted on that basis. But you may be exempted from harming others in a war if you can make a case for how your beliefs are anchored in tradition, history, and a true spiritual/philosophical belief. "Your allegations are false, your reasoning is tainted, your vain and hateful rantings are in the hundreds, and your honor is no where to be seen." What allegations, you uneducated buffoon? You were responding to this quote: "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)." Again, you start off flapping your oversized mouth with your insults. "your reasoning is tainted" My same comment as above. "your vain and hateful rantings are in the hundreds" Same comment as above. "and your honor is no where to be seen." All because I said that there was "no justification for conscience as a defence against overt harm of others". DO you see what kind of a person you are and why it is impossible to hope for decent dialogue from you?? You are a real piece of work.