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 (77261)	10/10/2003 4:51:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

First, not all claims of conscience satisfy examination. Second, even if they do, some of them may be disallowed on the basis of compelling state interest. But the whole idea is to ask yourself if it's worth coercive measures, not to dismiss conscience claims without examination. That is what I am objecting to, using the idea that he could have done something else as a way of dismissing the fundamental claim that there is no reason one way or another to behave coercively in that situation...........

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77261)	10/10/2003 4:58:35 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"But if the guy walked into Tony's Ribs where the only item on the menu was pork ribs and claimed he had a right to be served there but to be served a non-pork dish, sorry, buddy, find somewhere else to eat. " I agree the guy has no right to demand non-pork, which has little to do with the logic of this discussion except for one thing. Your position earlier was that if a customer walks in to James's bath house, he has the right to demand to be soaped down by James's daughter. Equally, faulty reasoning.