<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Rumelhart writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff>"</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=3>I'm also talking about the inalienable right of freedom of expression,
not the specific Freedom of Speech laws coded in the Constitution.
<STRONG><FONT size=5>So I don't feel an overwhelming need to back up my opinion
on the subject with factual proof</FONT></STRONG> of a documented attempt to
take away NSA's freedom of speech."</FONT><BR></FONT><BR>What a bigoted
statement from someone who has put their foot in their mouth by making false
statements and is too prideful and stubborn to take it out gracefully!
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is especially bigoted and revealing because Rumelhart is
the one that always claims to insist on a high standard of proof in other
subjects on this forum. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If Rumelhart wants to convince us of his integrity,
then besides supplying the documentation that Ted reasonably asked for, he
can also proceed with proof of the truth of the statement "There
is an inalienable right to freedom of expression." Such a proof would
include a definition of "inalienable right" and a demonstration of how
proof of the existence of one is shown, and in particular, the proof of the
existence of the one he quotes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If Rumelhart had been paying attention over the last few
months/years he would have seen that many of us encourage in various ways
Cultmaster Douglas Wilson and his closely supervised/overlorded/censored flock
to speak out more. The more they say, the more foolish, ignorant, out of
touch, and irrelevant they show themselves. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Doug Wilson transformed himself from a local crackpot into a
national one by appearing in and being used as a foil in the movie
<EM>Collision</EM>. Even many of his former fans were appalled at his inanity
and his illogical defense of Christianity (In simple, undisguised terms:
Just assume it is true.) in this film.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As to the quote at issue from the NSA website: It may be
partially metaphorical, but only partially. Those of us who have followed
Wilson's egomaniacal, megalomaniacal ravings and actions over the years know
that when he us not getting the attention he thinks he is due, then you can
count on him to say something outrageously duncelike and also to
encourage some of his sheep to say and/or to
do something idiotic, illegal (actions), untruthful, and/or
antisocial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul
Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=starbliss@gmail.com
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:35
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of
expression</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>I thought I saw movement towards censorship of New Saint
Andrews web <BR>page, so I wrote a post about how important I thought freedom
of <BR>expression was. I also suggested that if people really did back
freedom <BR>of expression, they wouldn't get so bent out of shape when someone
<BR>exercises that freedom.<BR><BR>I'm also talking about the inalienable
right of freedom of expression, <BR>not the specific Freedom of Speech laws
coded in the Constitution. So I <BR>don't feel an overwhelming need to
back up my opinion on the subject <BR>with factual proof of a documented
attempt to take away NSA's freedom of <BR>speech.<BR><BR>With respect to the
climate science peer review process, I have read <BR>many of those emails from
Climategate, and I see a clear trend to deny <BR>skeptics and advocates of
other forces than CO2 having a major affect on <BR>climate from getting a fair
review by peers based solely on political <BR>reasons. I disagree with
the conclusions made by the House of Commons <BR>Science and Technology
Committee. I've read emails discussing getting a <BR>group of
like-minded peers to stop sourcing one journal because they <BR>disagreed with
a paper they allowed to be published, and other emails <BR>wondering how they
can get an editor removed or how they can get more of <BR>their own people on
their review committees. I have read accounts of <BR>authors of papers
having to jump through many hoops to get a paper that <BR>goes against
consensus published, while anything that does match <BR>consensus seems to fly
right through. I have also seen how much work <BR>certain individuals
had to go through to get access to data sets that <BR>should have been
published when certain very central climate scientists <BR>published their
papers. There was also a lot of shenanigans related to <BR>avoiding FOIA
requests for that very data that were revealed in the <BR>Climategate
emails.<BR><BR>So while they have officially been cleared of wrongdoing, I
still hold <BR>the opinion that they are politically motivated individuals
that are <BR>actively gaming the peer review system. Again, it's an
opinion, which I <BR>formed based on the reasons mentioned above. I also
think it's kind of <BR>asinine to ask me for essentially peer reviewed
references trashing the <BR>good old boy network I suspect is running the peer
review process. Good <BR>luck with that.<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>> Exactly.<BR>><BR>> While not offering any documentation,
that I've read, of denial or<BR>> advocacy of denial of free speech for New
Saint Andrews, those<BR>> offering critical commentary regarding NSA are
slyly being implicated<BR>> as though they are advocating denial of NSA's
right to free speech. I<BR>> also find this tactic offensive, as
someone else indicated in this<BR>> thread. I have not read any
comment on Vision2020 that is advocating<BR>> denying NSA their right to
free speech.<BR>><BR>> Either offer documentation that NSA's free speech
rights are being<BR>> denied or that someone is advocating denying that
right, or stop the<BR>> implication that those offering critical commentary
regarding NSA are<BR>> denying or trying to deny NSA's free speech
right.<BR>><BR>> Please provide the quote from Vision2020 advocating
denying NSA their<BR>> right of free speech.<BR>><BR>> This tactic is
similar to other allegations of censorship made by this<BR>> contributor to
Vision2020, where an allegation is repeated over and<BR>> over as though it
is fact, when as far as I have read the writer has<BR>> not offered
credible documentation of this alledged censorship.<BR>><BR>> This might
be viewed as off-topic, but it certainly relates to freedom<BR>> of
expression on a very critical issue for all of us...<BR>><BR>> I am
referring to the repeated allegation that there is a widespread<BR>>
conspiracy in peer reviewed climate science publishing to censor (not<BR>>
publish) credible competent climate science papers that fundamentally<BR>>
refute the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<BR>>
Change, in part revealed in the Climatic Research Unit emails that<BR>>
were hacked. This claim of a widespread conspiracy in climate
science<BR>> publishing to block competent credible science from being
published in<BR>> peer reviewed science journals has been investigated and
been found to<BR>> be without merit:<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/30/house-of-commons-exonerates-climate-scientist-phil-jones/">http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/30/house-of-commons-exonerates-climate-scientist-phil-jones/</A><BR>><BR>>
>From website above:<BR>><BR>> “Climategate Researchers Largely
Cleared: Investigation Finds No<BR>> Evidence Supporting Allegations
of Tampering with Data or Peer Review<BR>> Process<BR>>
-------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> Again, stop making the
allegation that the peer review process in<BR>> climate science publishing
engages in widespread censorship, or offer<BR>> credible documentation of
your claim.<BR>><BR>> Note I am not saying that there are no instances
of errors or<BR>> corruption in peer review science publishing, only that
there is no<BR>> widepread censorship to suit a specific
agenda.<BR>><BR>> Here is an example where a scientist who is arguably
the most well<BR>> known quoted IPCC and anthropogenic climate warming
critic, MIT<BR>> scientist Richard Lindzen, had a peer reviewed paper
published in 2009<BR>> that was revealed to have fundamental flaws that
should have resulted<BR>> in the paper being edited or corrected before
publishing, yet it was<BR>> published anyway as is. One of the
sponsors of Realclimate.org, NASA<BR>> climate scientist Gavin Schmidt,
defended the Lindzen/Choi 2009 paper<BR>> as containing "no obvious
nonsense," but scientists who are experts in<BR>> the exact scientific
issues involved in the Lindzen/Choi 2009 paper<BR>> disagreed. In
this case, shoddy peer review led to the publishing of<BR>> a paper that
required editing, a paper quoted by many so called<BR>> "skeptics" of
global warming to shed doubt on the basic findings of<BR>> the
IPCC:<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/</A><BR>><BR>>
>From website above:<BR>><BR>> The big question of course was, how is
it that LC09 did not even<BR>> bother to reference FG06, let alone explain
the major differences in<BR>> their results? Maybe Lindzen & Choi
didn’t know about the existence of<BR>> FG06, but certainly at least one
reviewer should have. And if they<BR>> also didn’t, well then, a very poor
choice of reviewers was made.<BR>> ----------<BR>> More on the
Lindzen/Choi 2009 paper at website below:<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/</A><BR>>
------------------------------------------<BR>> Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>><BR>> On 12/14/10, Joe Campbell <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>> <BR>>> Paul,<BR>>><BR>>> There
are a lot of issues here. No one is helped if we jumble them up<BR>>>
and forget which one we're talking about.<BR>>><BR>>> We're not
talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, you<BR>>> believe it,
it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legal restrictions<BR>>> of
speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling fire in
a<BR>>> crowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it
up. We<BR>>> agree.<BR>>><BR>>> In your previous post to me
you mocked my clam that Wilson's<BR>>> pro-slavery book was hate speech.
I gave this definition: speech that<BR>>> "may incite violence or
prejudicial action against or by a protected<BR>>> individual or group,
or because it disparages or intimidates a<BR>>> protected individual or
group." The "city test" (as I'll call it) is a<BR>>> test to see if
something is hate speech. If you can say it on a city<BR>>> street and
LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to a<BR>>> city,
stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the idea that<BR>>>
slavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated
well<BR>>> and had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you
would get<BR>>> beat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In
order to get<BR>>> slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST
their WILL. Does that<BR>>> sound like paradise to you? Would anyone in
their right mind think<BR>>> that being kidnapped, held against ones
will, and forced into labor<BR>>> with no pay is PARADISE? It is an
OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit<BR>>> whatsoever. It would be offensive to
suggest the idea in a single case<BR>>> -- like the Elizabeth Smart
case: it is offensive to suggest that she<BR>>> enjoyed being kidnapped,
held against her will, raped and abused. To<BR>>> suggest it about the
US institution of slavery is even more offensive,<BR>>> offense to
blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose for<BR>>> such an
absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would make<BR>>> such a
suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, people one<BR>>>
hates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make such
an<BR>>> absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published
on<BR>>> Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch
it.<BR>>> That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI
historians to<BR>>> refute it. It is without academic and social merit.
Its only purpose<BR>>> is to make people angry. That is hate
speech.<BR>>><BR>>> Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the
city test. Just find one<BR>>> black man NOT a member of Christ Church
and run the idea by him. Then<BR>>> try to convince him that it isn't
offensive. See where you get. You<BR>>> cannot take this crap to
anywhere other than an on-line blog in Idaho<BR>>> and get away with
saying it without getting punched in the nose or<BR>>> having your house
burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you want<BR>>> to try to
prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane and<BR>>> we'll
put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while you<BR>>>
conduct the test because someone will need to take you to the
hospital<BR>>> afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you
up.<BR>>><BR>>> And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered
down at all. You<BR>>> could try the city test with a variety of other
statements and LIKELY<BR>>> you won't get punched. There is something
special about the suggestion<BR>>> that slavery was paradise, something
that you still don't seem to get.<BR>>> If you tried the city test,
you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just<BR>>> asking you to put your nose
where your theory is and see what happens.<BR>>> You won't do it, so you
loose this particular debate. Wilson's book is<BR>>> hate
speech.<BR>>><BR>>> I just wanted to point out that this is the
first time I've ever had<BR>>> an extended discussion on Vision 2020
about Wilson, NSA, etc. and no<BR>>> one mentioned my job, offended me
with insults, or told me to take it<BR>>> off-line. So I thank you for
that! Though I'm a bit worried that it is<BR>>> merely the calm before
the storm.<BR>>><BR>>> Best, Joe<BR>>><BR>>> On Dec
13, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> <BR>>>> Joe
Campbell wrote:<BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book
could only<BR>>>>> happen here and practically nowhere else in the
country. You take that<BR>>>>> book to a street corner in almost
any city and try to give the<BR>>>>> explanation you are giving
below. Do it. I am serious. You won't but<BR>>>>> if you did,
someone would literally beat the crap out of you. It would<BR>>>>>
quite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a
diverse<BR>>>>> population and try this experiment and see what
happens. You won't do<BR>>>>> it and you know it. That should tell
you something about your own<BR>>>>> attitude toward your own
argument. You can only give it in the<BR>>>>> sheltered confines
of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad
argument!<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>> I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's
views on<BR>>>> slavery. That means that I'm often in the
position of trying to protect<BR>>>> someone's right with whom I
disagree, since they are often the ones that<BR>>>> people are trying
to censor.<BR>>>><BR>>>> This idea that people should not
express their opinions because other<BR>>>> people might get upset is
basically what I'm fighting against. No, I<BR>>>> wouldn't want
to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug. I don't<BR>>>>
really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing the benefits
of<BR>>>> gay marriage either. That doesn't mean that I
shouldn't talk about
it.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I
defined it the<BR>>>>> other day it is speech that "may incite
violence or prejudicial action<BR>>>>> against or by a protected
individual or group, or because it<BR>>>>> disparages or
intimidates a protected individual or group." Say what<BR>>>>> you
will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this
and<BR>>>>> any reasonable definition. And the thought experiment
noted above, as<BR>>>>> well as your unwillingness to try to
provide the justification below<BR>>>>> in pretty much ANY context
other than this one, shows I'm correct. And<BR>>>>> I never said
the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violent<BR>>>>>
rhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE
speech.<BR>>>>> Offensive speech is political. Not religious but
political. You seem<BR>>>>> blind to that
truth.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>> I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as
to be<BR>>>> unworkable. All you have to do is disparage a
group and it's hate speech<BR>>>> by that definition. I think
many people on the far right let their<BR>>>> emotions rule their
responses too often. There, that would qualify as<BR>>>> hate
speech.<BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in
Idaho. I did not<BR>>>>> grow up in a place where folks could get
away with saying the kind of<BR>>>>> crap that NSA, No Weatherman,
etc. have gotten away with saying. So my<BR>>>>> experience of all
of this and of watching otherwise decent folks like<BR>>>>>
yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike anything
I<BR>>>>> could have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there
were butchers<BR>>>>> with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The
grandparents of some of<BR>>>>> my friends grew up in
concentration camps, as well. Nazi Germany was<BR>>>>> not
something I just read about in history books or heard about
in<BR>>>>> films. I actually heard some of the stories from actual
survivors of<BR>>>>> concentration camps. I saw and interacted
with these people often. I<BR>>>>> was told on a regular basis by
people who suffered to never forget and<BR>>>>> I
won't.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>> I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind
without fear<BR>>>> of getting their asses kicked or worse. I
think that should be the ideal,<BR>>>> not some sort of accident of
location to be chastised
about.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> I go back east a few times each year since my family and
my best<BR>>>>> friends still live there. Years ago I talked about
the slavery book<BR>>>>> and the regular criticisms of gays and
Muslims. One of the parents of<BR>>>>> my friend said: "This is
how it started in Nazi Germany. They started<BR>>>>> with the gays
and with the less populated groups and then moved on<BR>>>>> from
there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would have
been<BR>>>>> unthinkable but this year we actually had a man run
for political<BR>>>>> office whose pastor had insulting comments
about Mormons posted on his<BR>>>>> website. Want to read more
local hate speech about Mormons? Look here:<BR>>>>> <A
href="http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/">http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/</A><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of my
friend<BR>>>>> was correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a
year and I run into<BR>>>>> these folks and they ask me how it's
going. So I can't ever give up<BR>>>>> the fight to try to shake
some sense into this town. It is just not<BR>>>>> possible. Maybe
I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side of insulting<BR>>>>> some
idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make the<BR>>>>>
mistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy choice
for<BR>>>>>
me.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>> I would think that if you best want to fight the kind of
totalitarianism<BR>>>> exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would
fight for an individual's<BR>>>> right to freedom of expression,
among other rights like the right to<BR>>>> believe as one wishes and
the right to be different from the norm. You<BR>>>> can't have
freedom of expression if you try to define it as anything "not<BR>>>>
Nazi-like" or whatever your standard is. You have to take the bad
with<BR>>>> the good, or you don't have anything at
all.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I suspect that if some group tried to do
what the Nazis did in Germany<BR>>>> here, I'd be one of the first
targets. I wouldn't agree with the<BR>>>> silencing of
opposition voices, and I'd say so loud and clear. I'd be<BR>>>>
fighting on the "right" side, as far as most people are concerned,
which<BR>>>> would be a relief from what I'm currently doing which is
fighting for<BR>>>> viewpoints I don't usually agree with. From
my perspective, though, I'd<BR>>>> still be fighting for the same
thing.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I
trying to<BR>>>>> convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to
silence Christ Church or<BR>>>>> NSA. I'm just asking you and
others to stay the hell out of my way and<BR>>>>> let me say what
I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensive speech on<BR>>>>>
regular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of your
generous<BR>>>>> nature, so you better allow my speech
too.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>> I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as
anyones. My<BR>>>> comments aren't meant to try to silence
anyone. I'm just trying to put my<BR>>>> opinion on the matter
out there.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Paul<BR>>>><BR>>>>
<BR>>>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
<BR>>>>>> Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed
paradise in which<BR>>>>>> slaves were treated well and had a
harmonious relationship with their<BR>>>>>> masters is hate
speech? You may disagree with it, lots of people
whose<BR>>>>>> ancestors had a considerably worse experience
that he describes might<BR>>>>>> disagree with it, but that
doesn't make it hate speech. I think that he<BR>>>>>>
truly believes this, because he knows that many of the men that
owned<BR>>>>>> slaves at that time professed to be Christian,
and the Bible apparently<BR>>>>>> talks about slavery as an
everyday occurrence, so it must be something<BR>>>>>> that God
would approve of. So he selectively reads history and
picks<BR>>>>>> out what he thinks supports this ideal and
glosses over what doesn't. A<BR>>>>>> very easy trap to
fall into. That doesn't make his book hate
speech.<BR>>>>>> It more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a
historian), but it<BR>>>>>> doesn't make it hate
speech.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> And I fully support
his right to express his opinions on the
matter.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>> "Compare this with the supposedly harmful
statements on the NSA<BR>>>>>>> website. If our bar is
so low that that website can trigger cries of<BR>>>>>>>
"hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any
website<BR>>>>>>> is offensive to
somebody."<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Is this the
only example of hate speech from this crowd? For crying
out<BR>>>>>>> loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils of
slavery. They were noted<BR>>>>>>> by a NATIONAL
organization, one that helped remove neo-Nazis up
north.<BR>>>>>>> Did I make that up
too?<BR>>>>>>> Again, come back east with me just once and
try telling your story to<BR>>>>>>> my friends. I no longer
wonder how the Nazis took over Germany, I'll<BR>>>>>>> tell
you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself had much to
do<BR>>>>>>> with
it.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>>>>>>
<<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> Two separate responses in body of text
below. This fourth post today<BR>>>>>>>>> is
over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr sang
it:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> <A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY</A><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>>>>>>>>
<<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>> Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at
yahoo.com <<A href="http://yahoo.com">http://yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html</A><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
"According to my views on freedom of expression,
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>> correctness
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>> a disease that should be purged
from the
world."<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
and
earlier:<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html</A><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight
something<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>> isn't just
hyperbole."<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your eyes,
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>> move on..." regarding the New
Saint Andrews' website discussion
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020, you later state you
want to purge the world of the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
disease<BR>>>>>>>>>>> political
correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh, roll
your<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
eyes,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> and move on..." when someone
makes a politically correct
statement?<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Are politically correct
statements more harmful to the world
than<BR>>>>>>>>>>> statements suggesting
violence and hate, as some have
interpreted<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> statements on the NSA website
to
imply?<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>> I see the point you're making.
I wasn't suggesting that people<BR>>>>>>>>>>
point,<BR>>>>>>>>>> laugh, and move on to be
politically correct, I was suggesting
doing<BR>>>>>>>>>> that to avoid feeding the
trolls. Which is, really, what they
are.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> It appears the slippage of language
strikes
again...<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically
correct."<BR>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>> was asking, why object so strenuously to
those who make politically<BR>>>>>>>>> correct
statements, if this is what you think some on Vision2020
are<BR>>>>>>>>> doing, regarding New Saint Andrews'
website? What is the major harm<BR>>>>>>>>> in
someone making a politically correct statement on Vision2020,
if<BR>>>>>>>>> this is truly what is occuring (I am
not saying it
is...)?<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Are these statements more harmful than statements that
suggest<BR>>>>>>>>> violence and hate, as some found
the statements on the NSA website?<BR>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>> understand you do not think there is any
real threat implied by the<BR>>>>>>>>> NSA website,
but others perhaps disagree. What is the major
problem<BR>>>>>>>>> with expressing differing opinions
regarding the NSA website? Maybe<BR>>>>>>>>>
there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often focuses on
what<BR>>>>>>>>> I think are not very important
issues.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> I think that the societal self-censorship of
certain topics under the<BR>>>>>>>> guise of political
correctness has a negative effect in the long
run.<BR>>>>>>>> It stops the average Joe Public from
speaking his mind freely about<BR>>>>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>>>> he perceives to be negative traits of a
certain race, creed, or<BR>>>>>>>>
whatever<BR>>>>>>>> and it keeps people from being
offended, but Joe has not changed his<BR>>>>>>>> mind -
he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself. He
may<BR>>>>>>>> harbor<BR>>>>>>>> a
hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no simple way
of<BR>>>>>>>> blowing off steam. So he has a run-in
with one someday, and gets<BR>>>>>>>> violent. Or
he learns to not promote anyone in his company of
that<BR>>>>>>>> type<BR>>>>>>>> of
person, because it's one way of getting back at them. You get
the<BR>>>>>>>> idea. If there were no societal
prohibitions about talking about it,<BR>>>>>>>>
he<BR>>>>>>>> might learn that other people like people
of that type just fine, and<BR>>>>>>>> that they are
actually really nice, usually. He might even get in
a<BR>>>>>>>> discussion with one that turns into a
friendship, after the first bit<BR>>>>>>>>
of<BR>>>>>>>> arguing and name-calling dies
down.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> Compare
this with the supposedly harmful statements on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>> website. If our bar is so low that
that website can trigger cries of<BR>>>>>>>>
"hate<BR>>>>>>>> speech", then a veteran debater can
argue that almost any website is<BR>>>>>>>> offensive to
somebody. I'd rather save the phrase to describe
things<BR>>>>>>>> that are undeniably hate speech.
What's the harm in having some<BR>>>>>>>> language like
that on their website? People might get a
bad<BR>>>>>>>> impression<BR>>>>>>>>
of Moscow is one reason I've heard. Tough. We can only control
what<BR>>>>>>>> we<BR>>>>>>>> do
ourselves. We don't have the right to try to censor
others.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> If
people think that there is a real threat on the website, call
the<BR>>>>>>>> police. Making threats is against
the law. Just be aware that they<BR>>>>>>>> have a
definition of "threat" that the website may fail to
meet.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> I don't
have a problem with people expressing their views. It's
just<BR>>>>>>>> my<BR>>>>>>>>
opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression then
they<BR>>>>>>>> wouldn't be talking about this subject so
much. I do value freedom of<BR>>>>>>>> expression,
which is why I'm talking about what my concept of it
is<BR>>>>>>>>
here.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> Your response suggests you think the NSA
website should not be a<BR>>>>>>>>>
focus<BR>>>>>>>>> of discussion to "avoid feeding the
trolls." But in responding on<BR>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is politically
correct<BR>>>>>>>>> criticism regarding NSA, are you
feeding those politically correct<BR>>>>>>>>>
"trolls? You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>> website discussion in this thread, by
referencing it in your first<BR>>>>>>>>>
post.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> I think the person that wrote that blurb on
that website was hoping<BR>>>>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>>>> this kind of reaction. They were
trolling the people that watch them,<BR>>>>>>>> and a few
of them took the bait. If you don't want trolls to
continue<BR>>>>>>>> trolling, then your best bet is to
simply ignore them. Point, laugh,<BR>>>>>>>> roll
your eyes, and move on. If that's all the reaction they
get,<BR>>>>>>>> they'll find someone else to bait.
That's the method I've learned<BR>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>> works best after 20+ years of interacting
in Internet forums. It<BR>>>>>>>>
didn't<BR>>>>>>>> have anything to do with trying to
suppress the actual point they were<BR>>>>>>>> trying to
make.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> Again, why not just "...point, laugh,
roll your eyes..." at the<BR>>>>>>>>> criticisms of
NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it, as
you<BR>>>>>>>>> advised regarding the NSA
website? You think, if I have
understood<BR>>>>>>>>> you correctly, that these
criticisms are somehow creating ill will<BR>>>>>>>>>
between NSA and those of differing ideologies. So I suppose
you<BR>>>>>>>>>
think<BR>>>>>>>>> that less criticism of NSA will
encourage them to express more<BR>>>>>>>>> tolerance
of "secularists?" I doubt it. When an insititution
of<BR>>>>>>>>> higher learning, NSA, frames its
mission aggressively against others<BR>>>>>>>>> who do
not share their ideology, to argue this approach should
only<BR>>>>>>>>> arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your
eyes..." response, appears to be<BR>>>>>>>>> an
attempt to silence public discussion on substantive issues
that<BR>>>>>>>>> effect many people, which it also
appears you cannot be advocating,<BR>>>>>>>>> given
your emphasis on freedom of
expression.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> For one, I don't care if they ever learn to
have a better opinion of<BR>>>>>>>> secularists.
Their education on religion is none of my concern.
They<BR>>>>>>>> can go to the grave believing that
secularists are out to hunt them<BR>>>>>>>>
down<BR>>>>>>>> and convert them. I don't really
care. I don't feel the need to make<BR>>>>>>>> sure
that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I do.
In<BR>>>>>>>> fact,<BR>>>>>>>> I'd
hate a world like that. My stance is simple. Everyone has
the<BR>>>>>>>> right to think whatever they want, believe
whatever they want, and<BR>>>>>>>>
have<BR>>>>>>>> whatever view of whatever topic they
want. I don't care how<BR>>>>>>>>
horrendous<BR>>>>>>>> their beliefs or views are to
others. I also believe that they have<BR>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>> right to express those views however they
want, keeping in mind that<BR>>>>>>>> they don't have the
right to force others to listen to them, and
they<BR>>>>>>>> don't have the right to harm
others. If they want to put on the<BR>>>>>>>>
website<BR>>>>>>>> that they think that secularists
probably eat children for breakfast,<BR>>>>>>>>
so<BR>>>>>>>> what? If someone goes out and beats
up a secularist because of it,<BR>>>>>>>>
then<BR>>>>>>>> the responsibility for that action falls
on the shoulders of the<BR>>>>>>>>
person<BR>>>>>>>> that committed that action. There
are very few cases where I would<BR>>>>>>>> advocate for
censoring their website. The text they have on it
now<BR>>>>>>>> doesn't even come
close.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> Also, to claim the debate regarding
fundamentalist Christianity and<BR>>>>>>>>>
secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not worth
public<BR>>>>>>>>> discussion, is on the face of it,
not credible, given the power that<BR>>>>>>>>>
fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.
Consider<BR>>>>>>>>> that Idaho is one of the Super
DOMA states<BR>>>>>>>>> ( <A
href="http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm">http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm</A>
). There is no doubt that<BR>>>>>>>>> this law
is in part the result of a religious view that NSA
shares<BR>>>>>>>>> with other fundamentalist
Christians in Idaho. And they vote.
As<BR>>>>>>>>> they did regarding the ridiculous
topless ordinance the Moscow City<BR>>>>>>>>> Council
passed.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk
about fundamentalist<BR>>>>>>>> Christianity and the ills
they imagine are there. I just think
that<BR>>>>>>>> people that I've been assuming all along
are for freedom of expression<BR>>>>>>>> shouldn't get so
bent out of shape when something somebody says<BR>>>>>>>>
offends<BR>>>>>>>> them. I'm not trying to force
them to shut up, I really don't care.<BR>>>>>>>> What did
provoke me to write my little diatribe were indications
that<BR>>>>>>>> some sort of attempt to silence the NSA
people might be coming up. I<BR>>>>>>>>
misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce, but
at<BR>>>>>>>> the<BR>>>>>>>> time I
thought they were advocating for taking the site down. I
also<BR>>>>>>>> saw references to "hate speech", which is
a sensitive button of mine.<BR>>>>>>>> I'd hate for a
statement that more or less says "we fight
secularism<BR>>>>>>>> as<BR>>>>>>>>
an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of
"hate<BR>>>>>>>> crime". Stranger things have
happened.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> All
I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.
Let<BR>>>>>>>> people<BR>>>>>>>> say
what they like. It's better for all of us in the
end.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> To state you are not afraid of being
physically attacked by anyone<BR>>>>>>>>> from NSA,
nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on
their<BR>>>>>>>>>
website,<BR>>>>>>>>> does not address the real
influence based on behavior that such<BR>>>>>>>>>
rhetoric has on the local, state and national level, regarding
at<BR>>>>>>>>> least four very important issues (I'll
skip the alleged association<BR>>>>>>>>> with racist
groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book
"Southern<BR>>>>>>>>> Slavery As It Was"): gay and
women's rights, religious tolerance and<BR>>>>>>>>>
understanding between those of all religions, spiritual
worldviews,<BR>>>>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>>>>> those of no particular persuasion on
these matters, and the US<BR>>>>>>>>>
pursuit<BR>>>>>>>>> of the so called "war on terror,"
which as everyone knows is tainted<BR>>>>>>>>> with
religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the US
and<BR>>>>>>>>> internationally, by those of differing
religions:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<A
href="http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm">http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm</A><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>> From website
above:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> In a speech to high school kids at her
church, Sarah Palin said:<BR>>>>>>>>> "Pray...that our
leaders, our national leaders, are sending
[our<BR>>>>>>>>> military men and women] out on a task
that is from God. That's what<BR>>>>>>>>>
we<BR>>>>>>>>> have to make sure that we are praying
for, that there is a plan and<BR>>>>>>>>> that that
plan is God's
plan."<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>> I'm all for people discussing these
issues. I'm not for any attempt<BR>>>>>>>>
to<BR>>>>>>>> get the NSA to change their website other
than simple pleas that they<BR>>>>>>>> do so. What
people are discussing is not the implications of
their<BR>>>>>>>> viewpoints on secularism, they are
discussing whether or not their<BR>>>>>>>>
text<BR>>>>>>>> is violent and whether or not something
should be done about it.<BR>>>>>>>> Prejudice about
religion or lack of religion can be a problem,
it's<BR>>>>>>>> true. As long as no one is
censoring anyone, then I hope that debate<BR>>>>>>>>
rages along nicely. I just haven't seen much of it on here
with<BR>>>>>>>> regards<BR>>>>>>>>
to this topic. I admit, though, that I haven't been following it
all<BR>>>>>>>> that close. I just thought I'd go
ahead and elucidate my thoughts on<BR>>>>>>>> the subject
of freedom of expression, and hopefully others would
put<BR>>>>>>>> this in
perspective.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>>> "Political correctness" could be
defined to suit whatever I want to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
purge from society. Advocating purging a point of view is
alarming<BR>>>>>>>>>>> language. Perhaps
you were making a joke of some sort in
this<BR>>>>>>>>>>> comment, and I am missing the
joke by taking you
literally?<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
But consider this example: I define publicly exposing
undercover<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
CIA<BR>>>>>>>>>>> government assassins as a
"politically correct" agenda, that
must<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>> "purged" to protect the
necessary for national security<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
assassinations<BR>>>>>>>>>>> carried out in
secret by the CIA.. Thus in purging
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>> correctness in this
example, I am supporting government
secrecy<BR>>>>>>>>>>> regarding CIA
assassinations. It might be justifed to purge
somone<BR>>>>>>>>>>> planning to expose
undercover CIA assassins, to protect
national<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
security.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as
"politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>> correct" can be
viewed as idealistic ethically laudable
behaviors,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> sort of behaviors it seems you
would aprove given your support
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Wikileaks.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>> I think you are taking me too
literally. It's not politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>
correct<BR>>>>>>>>>> statements, which is basically
any statement not involving race,<BR>>>>>>>>>>
religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative light, that
I<BR>>>>>>>>>> object to. It's people feeling
like they cannot make politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>
incorrect statements because of some sort of societal pressure
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>
I<BR>>>>>>>>>> think is a problem. When I
said that I think "political<BR>>>>>>>>>>
correctness" is<BR>>>>>>>>>> a problem, I was
referring to the very idea that there are
things<BR>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>> we cannot talk about because they
might offend somebody, which is an<BR>>>>>>>>>>
idea I object to. Not talking about any one of these areas as
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>
society<BR>>>>>>>>>> helps only in the short
term. Real discussion is what heals
wounds,<BR>>>>>>>>>> societal pressure towards
silence only makes them
fester.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
You're example above referring to political assassination isn't
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>
sort<BR>>>>>>>>>> of political correctness I was
referring to, but while we are on the<BR>>>>>>>>>>
subject, I would say that keeping information about the
whereabouts<BR>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>> covers for assassins should be
kept secret. However, the fact
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>> US government is sanctioning
assassinations should be out in the<BR>>>>>>>>>>
open so<BR>>>>>>>>>> that the American people can
let their congressmen know whether or<BR>>>>>>>>>>
not<BR>>>>>>>>>> they think the US should be
engaging in such
behavior.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>> I agree that political correctness can be
used to censor, of course,<BR>>>>>>>>> can create a
climate of fear that blocks freedom of expression,
and<BR>>>>>>>>> can impede Democracy and the power of
the Fourth Estate. Look at<BR>>>>>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>>>>> happened to Bill Maher, or the US
media coverage of the build up to<BR>>>>>>>>> the
invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and frightening
example<BR>>>>>>>>> of media seized by a form of
patriotic political correctness that<BR>>>>>>>>>
kept<BR>>>>>>>>> the US public woefully
misinformed. The example of the firing
of<BR>>>>>>>>>
Imus<BR>>>>>>>>> for the "nappy-headed hos" comment
some argue is an example of the<BR>>>>>>>>> abuse of
political correctness. I wonder if you think Imus
should<BR>>>>>>>>> have been fired for what some claim
was an explictly racist comment?<BR>>>>>>>>> I recall
Imus meeting the women basketball players he referred to
in<BR>>>>>>>>> this manner, where he apologized, and
they asserted they were deeply<BR>>>>>>>>> offended by
his
statement.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
I knew that you were not referring to the sort of
political<BR>>>>>>>>> correctness I used as an
example, regarding CIA assassins. I
was<BR>>>>>>>>> simply saying that advocating purging
something from society, like<BR>>>>>>>>> political
correctness, is alarming language, that can be twisted
to<BR>>>>>>>>> suit nefarious agendas. I was
making no statement on the<BR>>>>>>>>> appropriateness
of exposing CIA assassins, only using this as
an<BR>>>>>>>>> example. My example was probably
not a good one to make my point.<BR>>>>>>>>> But given
you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll
not<BR>>>>>>>>> construct a better
example.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> I just thought I'd weigh in
here with a little diatribe of my
own.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
express<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves is
sacrosanct. The freedom to express your
opinion<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> should
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> held dearly by everyone, if
they want to live in a free
society.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in
my<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
humble<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, most having to
do with statements of facts and
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with libel laws, for
example. On the other hand, I
disagree<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> obscenity laws probably
universally. If groups want to
get<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> together
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> form islands of
information in which certain ideas are
suppressed,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> for that, too, as long as
other options exist. For example,
if<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
someone<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to create a
separate internet targeted at children
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
enforced<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> it's own censorship,
I would be OK with that. If parents were
OK<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> their kids surfing
unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> should be allowed to do
so without repercussions if their
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> ends
up<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> on a porn site or a site
about Islam or whatever your
favorite<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
boogey<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> man
is.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Our
government<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> works
*for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> us*. They should
only have secrets in very narrowly defined
areas<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> very specific
reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see it because
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
will<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> make our leaders look
like hypocrites" does not qualify.
The<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
people<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> behind Wikileaks are
exposing secrets that shouldn't be secrets
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable
world.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to my views on freedom of expression,
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> a disease that should be
purged from the world. Instead
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> helping,
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> just sweeps the problem
under the rug. If a person hates
blacks<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
because<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of an incident when
they were younger, or because they just
don't<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
like<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> people who are
"different", then they should be free to
express<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. Others
will likely disagree, and a dialogue
will<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
probably<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> ensue, but this is
healthy. This tendency by people to shun
these<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
sorts<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of debates is unhealthy
for society (in my opinion,
anyway).<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community,
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> might
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> well go ahead and add that
I also disagree with some of the
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography laws as they
exist on the books, as they relate
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
freedom<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of expression.
These laws have been expanded so much under
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> guise
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> "save the children" that
they are insane. In Australia, one
man<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
was<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> arrested for having
downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson
engaged<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> having sex, and was
convicted under that countries
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
pornography<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> laws. In
Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing
manga<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
comics<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> from Japan that
contained drawings of children having sex.
Was<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bart<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Simpson actually hurt by
this? Or the fictional
Japanese<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> schoolgirl?
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> can understand the
prohibition against possession of real
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
porn<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> (because it creates a
market for such things) though I don't
agree<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> it completely. I
think it should be a prohibition
against<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> *distribution* of
child pornography, not simply "possession",
if<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> for
no<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> other reason than people
might be likely to hand it over to
law<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement without the
fear of going to jail
themselves.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Prohibition<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> against "virtual
porn" is crazy and needs to be
fought.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what does this mean to us? It means that if something
offends<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
you,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> you should suck it up and
learn to live with it. Grow
some<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> thicker
skin<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> and see if you can find a
sense of humor on sale
somewhere.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Freedom
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> expression, if that's a
concept you agree with, has to
trump<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
"freedom<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> from being
offended". The minute you allow the idea that
some<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
things<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> are just too horrible
to be read or viewed, then you've
just<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of freedom of
expression out the window. Now you'll
have<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> slippery slope where the
definition of "too horrible" tends
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> match
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> ideals of the people who
are in power at any given
moment.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> expression
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> that they most often end up
defending things that they
might<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
vehemently<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
with. They defend the speech of people they simply
don't<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
like<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> or don't agree with, and
they defend speech they are
personally<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
offended<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> by because the speech
that everyone agrees with is not
threatened.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
website,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> which I wasn't, then
I would still be fighting for their right
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> be
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> inane with their metaphors
as they wish. I applaud them,
really,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> not rushing to change the
page in an orgy of political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
correctness.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>>>>>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
<BR>>>>>
<BR>><BR>>
<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>