I know what the word means, it was after all me who used it, ...
That's always a guarantee that someone knows what a word means.
*No way ! You have me in a tangle with regard to my justified beliefs *
This really makes no sense. If you are referring to the [true] justified belief approach to what is knowledge then it is (a) out of place here and (b) not equivalent to using the word "epistemic".
You could convince me that there are things the state could make me do with physical force, but I suppose all we would be doing is kicking around the meaning of the word 'obligations'.
That's not what I meant. I meant that I could convince you that you owe obligations to people. Like an obligation not to stab everyone you pass with a knife.
But maybe you don't believe that because you think that the only liberty of any value at all is the right that everyone has to do whatever the fuck they want to other people?
Well firstly atheism and veganism are not a belief systems
To the extent that you are right, the Equality Bill is not interested in protecting them (as far as I understand it anyway). In other words, someone who merely doesn't like a certain type of food would not be protected. The E&HRC guidance merely proposes that for some people, a persons beliefs about how they perceive the world or how they ethically choose to live can go beyond supernatural powers and encompass other moral/ethical choices which may be just as important.
That's always a guarantee that someone knows what a word means.
This really makes no sense. If you are referring to the [true] justified belief approach to what is knowledge then it is (a) out of place here and (b) not equivalent to using the word "epistemic".
That's not what I meant. I meant that I could convince you that you owe obligations to people. Like an obligation not to stab everyone you pass with a knife.
But maybe you don't believe that because you think that the only liberty of any value at all is the right that everyone has to do whatever the fuck they want to other people?
To the extent that you are right, the Equality Bill is not interested in protecting them (as far as I understand it anyway). In other words, someone who merely doesn't like a certain type of food would not be protected. The E&HRC guidance merely proposes that for some people, a persons beliefs about how they perceive the world or how they ethically choose to live can go beyond supernatural powers and encompass other moral/ethical choices which may be just as important.