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 : For the Sake of Clarity and Meaning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (543)	3/15/2005 12:37:41 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 777

Wow ... that's a lot to digest joe and I have a full day so I'll just take the top of your list and try to get back to you on the others later. "What if he has a change of conscience and no longer wants to fight for the big boss? " I have expressed my opinion in the past that we should consider inalienable rights in the same light that we consider the rest of our constitution. Conscientious objector status has long been recognised but is a difficult position to qualify under our current perspective on the issue. IMO we have evolved as a society and should be open to reconsideration of these points. For example: 'No person shall be required to violate an issue of personal conscience in the performance of public or private service to another.' Imposing the will of the group on one's freedom to live according to one's conscience has no place. Freedom of conscience maintains the delicate balance between responsibility for the care of one's fellows and the freedom from oppression by one's fellows that we should all seek individually and on behalf of one another. Any violation of this principle is a violation of Peace, Justice and the Liberty to live as a noble human being. Any such violation must be opposed, beginning at your heart and continuing by word and deed as necessary, lest you forgo your membership as noble human being, and deservedly become one of the forlorn and oppressed.

To: average joe who wrote (543)	3/15/2005 1:49:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 777

"# 1 but few would agree with you being a judge, jury and executioner." Have you ever met my twin brothers 'Who Cares?' and 'Not Me!'

To: average joe who wrote (543)	3/15/2005 1:50:15 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 777

"# 2 I also agree with but many shop store owners have found themselves up on murder charges for defending their property." I wasn't thinking of defending property as 100% inside the self-defense item. It might be a grey area, more open to disputation.

To: average joe who wrote (543)	3/15/2005 1:54:05 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 777

"# 4 the courts via the government and sometimes the church have carved out this right for themselves but heinous in some ages has meant consorting with the devil. Times change and as far as I know it is perfectly legal to consort with the devil but this may change again. What will we do then?" As times change, circumstances change. At one time if you stole a guy's horse, it could very likely leave him in a life threatening situation. So, horse stealing was a hanging offense. Now, the law looks at stealing a horse as equivalent to taking someones entertainment system or something. In other words, we can cross that bridge when it's time comes.