On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Matt Jensen wrote:
--]
--]> 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.]
--]
Here are the points that have cropped up in this thread that seem worth
discusion/deabte...
--Where does your right to think a thing is unmoral end, does it extend
out to make that thing unobtainable or does it simply extend to viglient
discourse.
--Can a society live in a state of disharmony over the moral and social
implications of its internal differnces and still maintain an envioronment
for free and open exploration and growth of the items of disharmony.
--Can a valid opinion be formed without the benifit of first hand study of
the points that make it up, ie is meta data or second hand data
quantatitve enough to form opinions.
--Whos your daddy.
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.org---===---]
\ /
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:25 PDT