On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Tom WSMF wrote:
> --]This is my issue with you, Lisa, and others on this. You talk in
> --]absolutes about a concept ('censorship') that you define very broadly.
> --]That leads to shallow thinking, IMHO.
>
> And here we go again. The "your just to dumb to see my point of view"
> argument.
No, the opposite. *I'm* to dumb to see *your* point of view when it's
painted so broadly that it can't be pinned down for discussion. So please
let my normal-scale, non-telepathic brain get in on the action by being
more precise in your arguments. On the other hand, if your arguments
aren't more precise than they appear, then I do consider them shallow
(which is different than 'dumb').
> I think you got the right to think whatever it is you want to think. Just
> dont expect anyone else to buy into it or pretend its a debatle point.
(side note: Buying into it, and considering it worth debating, are two
different things, 'course.)
> In 1918 Kaiser Karl had every right to try and pull off the Piave
> offensive, but the opposing forces didnt have to sit there act all
> surprised and roll over. He had the right to go for it and as a result his
> Empire went out of existence.
I take back my 'moron' comment. That is the most insightful defense of
free speech I've ever read.
> The thing is my own personal way of thinking extends to you that right,
> yours seeks to take away that right UNLESS others think as you.
[I gave you a whole list of possible actions someone might argue for.
Since you didn't mention any of them specifically, can I take it your
point is not "you're trying to take away my rights", but rather "I agree
you're not after my rights, but if you were, I'd be against it"? I just
want to know if we're still debating that point.]
-Matt Jensen
NewsBlip.com
Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:25 PDT