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 (77122)	10/9/2003 6:39:14 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

There is only an issue here if we accept that what he wants to do is illegal. I disagree with that, Chris. I realize that Neo has been diligently constraining his comments to legalities and that you are interested in legalities. I, however, have been more interested in whether Jewel's claim in forming the hypothetical that Mojo is noble in his pursuit or not, whether it is right and just and fair, or not. Whether it is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing for society. And what precedents might be set by accepting his approach. The notion presented the other day of an interest group for old-time values was of interest to me but I guess speculation on how that might play out is off the table. If we grant conscientious objector status to the conscientiously chaste, does that imply that public beaches might need to provide separate sections for the bikini-averse? Or that the NFL should set up a team of two just for those who are averse to reporters in the locker rooms? Or sex-segregated hospitals? Some of us find speculation interesting...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77122)	10/9/2003 7:17:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

In our hypothetical, we have been accepting that discrimination in the provision of a public service is illegal. Otherwise, there's nothing in the hypothetical to discuss. If, for example, Mojo were a vet who refused to treat cats, there's no issue. There is only an issue here if we accept that what he wants to do is illegal. Legality is not the only issue. Also even if you want to confine the issue to ones that touch on the law there can still be an issue even if Mojo's actions are legal as long as someone was arguing that they should be made illegal. Edit - Whether the law is right, of course, is another question. But the answer to an unjust law, as we have known since the days of the Crito and had reaffirmed most recently by Martin Luther King, is to seek their revision, but while they exist either to obey them, or to openly disobey them AND OPENLY ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. Thats part of the answer, but there is also lobbying for the law to change (or if it isn't already illegal for the law not to change), or asking for a special excemption if the law allows for it and you think it is justified. Also I don't think that it is unreasonable to keep doing something illegal, if you think it shouldn't be, and only accept the consequences if you get caught. I don't think you have to take out a front page add announceing your illegal activity. Tim