🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gemod$ie$1@usenet50.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com (HiThere) wrote:
>In article <gall-0704981602460001@usrts1m9.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca
> (Norman Gall) wrote:
>

Hope you don't mind me isolating this bit of the exchange, and I appreciate 
the [sic]...careless of me :-)

>>>I actually think physicians _should_ be able to turn 
>>> patients away--_if_ they have not taken the Hippocratic oath, but the oath 
>>> should be voluntary. I think, for instance, that a Doctor [sic] (or other 
>>> individuals) should be able to say to a bigot *there is a price for your 
>>> attitude--and it is this: I won't help you.*
>>
>>Some price.  The cost should be far more dear for what the bigot does is
>>deny someone's humanity.
>> 
>


You see the denying of a person's humanity as being a severe crime. I'll 
agree. What I don't understand is how you could minimize the defensive and 
retaliatory granting of the person's terms to the point you don't see it as an 
adequate punishment. The bigot denies the individual's humanity (severe) and 
gets exactly that back (equally severe...and severe _multiplied_ by each 
person that joins the boycott). This solution (other than allowing the 
defensive act--but not penalizing those who do not join the boycott) places 
few if any demands on the State while allowing individuals, in a very passive 
manner, to exact (and possibly later withdraw) a sanction that we both see as 
_very_dear_. In a sense (although I don't think this attribute necesarily 
makes it a better choice of sanction) it's the classic *eye for an eye* with 
the added finesse of not requiring the boycotter or the State to initiate 
force. There is no positive obligation on _anyone_.

Ron