Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Wasn't it Socrates who said "no man would follow a course they knew was wrong"? By suggesting they are wrong and you are right is practically begging they reform and act or think like you.
You might feel that way when you argue with someone but that's your problem. I'm not begging anyone do anything.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Every time you state an opinion you suggest someone think like you.
So? They still have to make up their own minds.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Religion is among other things a set of moral guidelines. Violating any of mine would be the most illegal act according to the highest authority. Using that logic than I would have a moral obligation to deny others the ability to be immoral as well as have the right to deny them housing or employment.
Only if you're an asshole. Luckily most religious people, misguided though they might be, are more concerned with their own beliefs than prosletyising towards others. Muslims and Jews are not supposed to eat pork, for example, not for
moral reasons but for spiritual ones. I think most Jews or Muslims, when they see other people eating posrk, just shake their heads and think to themselves 'poor soul, he's not living a clean life.' I've never met any jew or muslim who discriminates against anyone just because they eat pork. Of course religions normally have a moral aspect too, but the moral precepts they preach are generally reflected in societal norms as well. Even if those normas are not, they are still regulated, and religious persons are not allowed to discriminate against others either, which is how it should be, in my opinion. It would be wrong for a Jewish landlord to deny a Muslim a home
solely on the basis of their religion. Of course in practice you would find it hard to prove that is the reason they were denied, but it would be prima facie wrong to trreat them differently for that reason.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
The whole statement contradicts itself.
no it doesn't. But try to explain why if you feel like it.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
In bussiness the cheapest and easist way is the best, getting rid of the Muslims and hiring some Catholics would more than likely be cheaper and easier than anything else you can come up with.
In some cases maybe, in other cases not. But it would be unfair according to the law, and for that matter morality as accepted by society, so whatcha gonna do.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Your job as well as housing is a privilege not a right.
Well, everyone has the right to employment and to an adequate standard of living, including housing. At least according to the UNDHR.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I feel free, i don't know how things work in Finland.
Feel it all you want, but you're not. As you point out in your OP you can't discriminate against people due to religion, ergo you are not (absolutely) free. There are hundreds of things we can't do. You certainly seem to be talking about absolute freedom but let me know if you have another type of freedom in mind.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I would prefer to choose whether i want to judge others and be judged myself.
Well maybe you would but that's tough luck innit? You can't - you are constrained by law and society's moral codes. Or rather, you are free to judge other people all you want but you are limited in how you treat them as a result of your judgements. Another example of you not being free.
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Stop winking at me
No.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-14 13:28:45)
