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 (77309)	10/11/2003 6:12:48 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree, but I don't want karen to think I will not entertain some fairly intelligent suggestions as being off point. Good thing I don't freak out at the sight of teaming and manipulation. <gg> Regarding "off point," let me be clear that I am accepting your fence because I really would like to get the bottom of this freedom of conscience thing, the concept. At the top of the discussion, I asked what was meant by that. And I questioned what, exactly, that bought you that plain vanilla freedom didn't. I am still looking forward to an answer to that at the bottom of the discussion and that is why I'm still in it. Thus far I have been able to accept it as the government not having the authority to force someone to do something against his conscience, even if that means he is breaking the law. Thus we have individuals who were able to avoid military combat when it was illegal to do so. Thus we have a judge who does not have the option to award a female plaintiff a massage from Mojo. The judge must pick another penalty if he assesses a penalty. I can get my head around that notion of freedom of conscience pretty easily. I still haven't seen advantage beyond that of claiming freedom of conscience nor is it clear that freedom of conscience as I have described it above is an incrementally greater freedom than one would have without claiming it. At best, it gets one immunity from a law that requires a citizen's overt action if that action is problematic to one's conscience. I have not as yet heard anything persuasive about it getting you immunity from laws designed to protect other people. Under freedom of conscience, the government cannot compel you to take certain sensitive actions, but freedom of conscience does not give you immunity when you take action according to your conscience that damages someone else. That's where I am so far. I'm willing to expand my current understanding of freedom of conscience if and when I hear something persuasive. As regards the statist thing, the premise of this is that Mojo is doing something illegal. If he weren't, there is no point to the hypo because he wouldn't have to claim freedom of conscience. I am not here advocating making what Mojo is doing illegal. I'm merely accepting that it is for the sake of having a discussion on freedom of conscience because if it isn't illegal, there is nothing to discuss, at least nothing within the scope of the discussion as you've defined it.