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 (77438)	10/12/2003 4:28:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I just want to underscore the situation at the point of "arguable" claim......... There are two reasons why I have been pressing that point. One is that I still want to find out, by the bottom of this discussion, what the marginal value of a conscience claim might be over a plain-vanilla freedom claim, just what edge it is that it provides. As I said earlier, I "get" how a claim of conscience gets you out of doing something required by law, like induction into the military. I still don't "get" how it protects you from liability claims when someone else is injured by your action. The other reason I'm pressing you for a statement that it is at least theoretically possible for Mojo to do harm to someone else is because much of the fussing that's gone one here over that past month has been Jewel's insistence that Mojo could do no harm, zero, zip, zilch. Just trying to get you clearly on record that he could do damage for which he could be held liable. I'm not having any problem with your use of the word, arguable. It suits me just fine.