>necessary, so long as no one's religion requires the eating of pork?
Well of course, if no one is affected by that law, then why would they care. I'm sure there are alot of blue laws here that are weird and prolly dumb, but I only know of only 1 or 2 of them because they dont really affect met. out of sight out of mind.
It will be OK in the sense that, hey, if most of the people here feel that strongly about it, then you would expect things to turn out that way. not saying that it is morally right or wrong.
>So, you are saying that if there is a valid reason to take offense,
>others should change behavior. Who decides whether it is reasonable to
>take offense? Is it only if the majority finds it offensive, or if a
>minority group (or, for that matter, one person) finds it offensive?
The statement I made about having to switch from palindrome handles is a special case, because #1, I feel like you guys are my buddies, and wouldn't mind doing certain things to help out or make u feel more comfortable. I'm just like that (sometimes), and only speak for myself in that situation. In this special case, if I find that the person's offense is sincere and reasonable........................................
but what is reasonable? what is sincere? Who decides what is offensive? How about common sense? What's common sense?! nothing is objective everything is subjectie! what's this whats whats whats that oh no I can't use common sense anymore I've gone crosseyed.
That last paragraph was an answer to your question about what offensiveness is. I dunno how else to answer it! :\
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Doom
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Religious oppression in action
brobborb wrote:
> For your first question, it depends on whether the effect of the law
> actually tramples on his beliefs, and also, how much he is willing to
> tolerate.
So it'd be okay to make eating pork illegal, and enforce that when
necessary, so long as no one's religion requires the eating of pork?
> If the majority of the people in this list decides that no one can use
> palindrome.....it doesnt really matter. COs i dont really like
> palindromes all that much. HOWEVER, it would be an inconvenience to me
> to just to have to change my handle. I would also question why they
> would want this. Does it make someone blind, does it offend
> someone? if it offends someone, I will consider the nature and validity
> of that offense, and won't mind inconveniencing (does that word exist?)
So, you are saying that if there is a valid reason to take offense,
others should change behavior. Who decides whether it is reasonable to
take offense? Is it only if the majority finds it offensive, or if a
minority group (or, for that matter, one person) finds it offensive?
> myself to change the handle. of course, if i HAVE to change it because
> it is a new official rule, then I'd go ahead and do it. It really
> doesnt bother me that much.
Okay, same question. This time, the law requires you to have a sex
change because the majority of people want one.
--Ben
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
