Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:23:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1111 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote:
> Even you are a little squeamish about the druggist's behaviour: "If I were he I'd
> work out a payment plan blah blah blah" And yet you cannot find anything morally
> wrong in it, either. It all works out logically (why he is justified to withhold
> the drug), but in the end it just *seems* wrong somehow. Why is that? And
> whatever that is, *you* are reacting to it as well by acting charitably if you were
> the druggist. Please explain.
There is a difference between holding and even publicising an opinion
that the druggist is a slug, and using force to require him to sell the
drug. There is nothing wrong with that opinion even being wrong (in the
examples Larry stated of Heinz buying a luxury good instead of
insurance, or being a wife beater). You have a right to hold any opinion
you want, and even to speak it (I saw an interesting analysis of the
right of free speach which states that it must only apply to actuall
speach, and not letters, e-mail, or any other form of communication,
_because_ the right of a free press is specifically enumerated. Of
course the counter argument is that there is nothing which states that
there is no right to freedom to express opnions in any other form of
communication, so therefore those rights are probably also held).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
