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: Lane3 who wrote (77520)	10/13/2003 5:14:05 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

On that note, I must go to pick up my wife at the Metro station. I will probably not be back this evening. Take care, all.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (77520)	10/13/2003 5:17:21 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"In order to illustrate the meaning of freedom of conscious, the character has to be doing something illegal or the character would be of no utility in illustrating freedom of conscience, which presumes defiance of the law. Having 'Freedom of conscience' allows the individual to operate, or seek to operate, within the law by gaining exemption from statutes aimed at the norm. The issue for freedom of conscience is that it must be based on an ethic that is more conservative than the ethic for which the legal standards were set. Thus an exceptionally ethical belief about the already valid ethic is granted exception in how it is handled by the law. When unethical attributes are attached to the character or conduct of mojo (or other ethical attributes for that matter) that are not necessary or consistant with the original issue it convolutes the argument. We can make him a Care Bear or the Archdeacon Frollo from the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Neither of these helps address the topic. Except that the latter convinces us that we should not consider claims of ethics to be legitimate, at which time the 'freedom of conscience' issue vaporizes.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77520)	10/13/2003 5:40:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"If one wants to answer the question of whether freedom of conscience has any value as a defense against damages, one has to put the character in a position of having done damage." I am conceding that I do not think 'freedom of conscience' is a defense against damages. However, I also still believe the two concepts are incompatible. Consider that for a moment. You have made valiant efforts to come up with a damage scenario. It might help you to understand your frustration with that, if you can get your mind around the concept of incompatibility. So, the premise of 'if there are damages' is a false premise to make any kind of deterimination about Freedom of Conscience. IMO