Actually the "if it harms none" is a sticky wicket because that "harm" and that "no-one" has to be politically defined but ends up debated.
-
-
Replying to @CBLK08
There needs to be a high threshhold. My disbelief in God could cause many true believers genuine anxiety & distress but can't be helped.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CBLK08
Provided I'm not stopping them from believing & saying so & living according to their belief, I can disbelieve & say so & live accordingly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Not atheist but I def support church-state segregation. An evangelical political strain in politics refuses that & threatens democracy 2day.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CBLK08
Yes, this is the consequentialist element which is more important. The discussion on the merits of various ideas is a different element.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
and those labeled liberal "elites"-- elites having taken the step to analysis of ideas "about" thinking and it's process to a step 2.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
And that ability or desire to do so is where I see those who *should* be doing so legislatively get labeled as "liberal elites" 2.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CBLK08
If we get too abstract about principles over consequences?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
They should be able and willing to do deep analysis of ideas to determine the most balanced even-handed policies. Not deterred instead. 2.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.