The list goes on and on. If you draw the line anywhere then you've applied the exact same principle you just espoused against; you just choose to draw the line in a slightly different place.
The list goes on and on. If you draw the line anywhere then you've applied the exact same principle you just espoused against; you just choose to draw the line in a slightly different place.
You won't be going around murdering people since it is common sense and you are brought up this way.
Murder and dirty joke is not the same thing if you have any common sense and that's why usually murder has priority over dirty jokes in court. You usually don't get sued for dirty joke. That's why we don't call dirty jokes a murder nor we call murder a joke.
And the common sense is what should set our priorities. Who would you rather see in court first mass murderer or a thief? And on what grounds do you decide this? How do YOU decide which is more offensive? Do we have scales for it?
There was a thread around here somewhere in which the correct, acceptable behaviour of a society (real, not an imaginary example, unless I radically misread it) involved boys becoming men by giving oral sex (and swallowing) to older men. A neighbouring society decided anal sex was the way to go. This is simply "common sense" in those societies. Everyone agrees.
We live in societies where one person's "common sense" is another person's completely unacceptable behaviour.
"Who would you rather see in court first mass murderer or a thief?"
Will you be petitioning the courts to refuse to try thieves unless everyone accused of murder has been tried already? That would essentially legalise theft.
So it's not so much about drawing a line as there should be no need to draw it.
It's a bit - in a far fetched way - like the song Tim Minchin sang about the pope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sph8Qu8wLAk
An unbending, absolute rigid belief? Sounds like a religous style "broken brain".