On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:59:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 1/23/2014 4:59 AM, clipka wrote:
>>>> Note that §1.4 doesn't tell me to respect others' rights that /I/
>>>> think they have, but others' rights that /they/ think they have.
>>>>
>>> Hmm. Pretty sure its a valid concept to disrespect the right that
>>> someone else thinks they have, to say.. shoot me, or like.. a lot of
>>> other things. Seems to me that there is just.. a tiny flaw in the
>>> logic some place. ;)
>>
>> No, it's just that conflicting cases are not covered by §1, and other
>> paragraphs - derived not from the basic agnostic position but from the
>> personal belief - have to kick in.
>>
> Sorry, but.. I don't want to be shot isn't a "personal belief". One
> can't exactly be agnostic about certain things and not be.. inhuman, or
> insane, or, at minimum, anti-social/destructive.

I think what clipka is saying is that his rules apply to things relating 
to religious faith (or lack thereof), but that's not the only factor.  
Not wanting to be shot isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of personal 
preference, so it's not covered by those rules.

It seems to be constrained by the idea that if someone else's religious 
beliefs/faith aren't affecting me, it doesn't matter.  If it does, then 
it's not a matter of faith any more, then it's a matter of "effects in 
the real world that impact one personally" and a different set of 
guidelines apply.

Have I understood you correctly, clipka?  I find it interesting.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message