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 (77477)	10/13/2003 2:17:59 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Would you elaborate?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77477)	10/13/2003 2:20:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I am starting to lose my temper. If I try to deal with this in the abstract, I get asked for an example. If I give an example, the example gets picked at and twisted and criticized. The question I'm asking is quite clear. If it wasn't before the example, imperfect though it may be, it is clear now. The question is: if someone damages someone else, what is a claim of freedom of conscience worth as a defense? It doesn't matter what unforeseeable consequences means, contract, tort, or otherwise. Can't we just assume for the sake of getting to the bottom line that Mojo broke the commitment and Leslie was damaged?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77477)	10/13/2003 2:35:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"What harm?" Has been the salient question to answer for over a month now. Karen remarks that Jewel keeps insisting that there is no harm. She is right. I cannot imagine legitimate harm being perpetrated by someone operating under a legitimate claim of "freedom of conscience," in direct response to that claim. The question has not been answered nor do I believe that it can be. Most of the harm attributed to mojo has nothing to do with his believe statement. It has to do with negative personality components and conduct that his opponents attribute to him, usually through extrapolation. Message 19396332 It's possible that the reason all of the attempts to find an example break down is that the two things are incompatible... legitimate claim of freedom of conscience and legitimate claim of harm being caused by that legitimate claim of freedom of conscience.