<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18542" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Comic Sans MS;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Consolas;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=white>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And if you really do want to read it, I will lend
out my copy. Frankly, it kind of creeps me out to have it in my research
library, so if it isn't returned......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Debi R-S</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jpool@moscow.com href="mailto:jpool@moscow.com">John Pool</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=MoscowSam@charter.net
href="mailto:MoscowSam@charter.net">'Sam Scripter'</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">'Moscow Vision
2020'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:31
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie
(Was "Freedom of Expression")</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">The
Moscow public library also has a copy, but I think that it doesn’t circulate
(i.e., it’s for in-library reading only).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">John
Pool<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
<A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Sam
Scripter<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 17, 2010 10:03 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Moscow Vision 2020<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was
"Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Comic Sans MS'">Re Warren's
suggestion . . .<BR><BR>As of a few moments ago, Amazon.com lists two new
copies <BR>of <U>Southern Slavery: As It Was</U> [paperback] @ $94.82 each,
<BR>and used copies @ $39.93:<BR><BR></SPAN><A
href="http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J">http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J</A><BR><BR>Warren
Hayman wrote: <o:p></o:p></P><PRE>Hi Paul,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Pardon the intrusion on my part. But after all this discussion, why not just <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>read the book? It's neither hard nor long, and could perhaps answer some of <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>your concerns. Just a thought.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Warren Hayman<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>From: "Paul Rumelhart" <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>To: "Joe Campbell" <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:44 AM<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>I guess the mere existence of a book that defends slavery, if that's what <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doing, doesn't shock me as much as the rest of you. If you really want to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>shocked, I can send you to a couple of websites I know of, or point you to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>couple of movies I've watched recently.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>My only point was that I don't think it should be classified as hate <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>based on what I have heard about it. I still don't understand why that <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>throws<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you all into a tizzy.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I don't know what to do about this, so I guess I *am* doomed to go through <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>life<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ignorant and opinionated.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Oh well. Have a nice holiday.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>----- Original Message ----<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>From: Joe Campbell <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>To: Paul Rumelhart <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Cc: keely emerinemix <A href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><kjajmix1@msn.com></A>; Tom Hansen <A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><thansen@moscow.com></A>; <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Moscow<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision 2020 <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 6:40:10 AM<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Subject: Re: Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Again, I'm off the V for awhile but since you asked the answer is that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Wison's book is a defense of SLAVERY. That and he's had a lot of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political influence in town for a pastor. And then there is the fact<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that he gets to say whatever offensive thing he wants and anytime time<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>someone speaks out against him he tries to get them fired (see some of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the letters written to the governor trying to get two UI profs fired<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for writing the critical pamphlet of his book), or kicks them out of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>his church (Michael Metzler), or floods the V with posts from his<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>friends (Crabtree, Harkins, etc.).<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Just read the introduction to his book that Tom posted or any of a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>number of things on Tom's website. Won't take long. In other words, DO<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IN PUBLIC BUT<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT. Or just stay out of it you'd rather go<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>through life ignorant but opinionated.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Best, Joe<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A> <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>You know, I find it amazing how many people want to make sure that I know<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that Doug Wilson's book is crap, when I've never even read it, I'm not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>advocating for any positions he takes, and the only thing I've said about <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is that I wouldn't classify it as hate speech based on my admittedly <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>limited<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>knowledge of it's contents.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Why does he have such a profound effect on so many people here? Usually<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>when I'm discussing my views on freedom of expression, it's in the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>context<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of supporting someone who has made a statue of Jesus on the cross and put <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on display in a jar of urine or denouncing something like Amazon's recent<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>move to delete Kindle books people paid for from their Kindle archives<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>because they contain descriptions of incestuous relationships. Those<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>usually lead to lively discussions about how much is too much and whether <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>makes sense to limit freedom of expression in certain defined areas. Yet<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the only discussion this topic engenders here is a unanimous agreement <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Doug Wilson's book is crap.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I guess I'll just have to go through life not understanding this.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>keely emerinemix wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I will wade in once more, just long enough to remark that if Paul's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>arguments are based on the premise that Wilson's slavery booklet is "a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>valid<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>work of historical research," he is making his freedom of speech <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>argument on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the flimsiest possible grounds.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I would hope that Paul would stake his claim on the presumption that the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>First Amendment means that Wilson can say idiotic, insipid things -- a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>point<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on which we all agree. But to augment his point with the offhanded<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>assumption that Wilson's take on Southern Slavery is a valid <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>contribution to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the annals of American history reveals Paul's argument to be based not <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the rightness of free speech, however stupid its content, but on the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>possibility that this example of protected blather makes that freedom <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>more<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>valuable.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>"Southern Slavery As It Was" is to valid historical research as a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Hostess<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Twinkie laced with rat poison is to classic French cuisine. Like a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>toxic<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Twinkie, it's a dense brick of artificial content, sugar-coated to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>appeal to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the basest of audiences and full of preservatives -- appeals to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"Southern<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>culture," Christian patriarchy, and wooden Biblical literalism -- that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>guarantee a long shelf life. Like a Twinkie, "Southern Slavery As It <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Was"<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is offered as a valid, important contribution to the field it purports <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an example of -- cuisine, American history -- and it deserves nothing <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>contempt from any literate reader, much less established, trained<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>historians. Wilson's "research" and conclusions are as embarrassingly<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>idiotic as West of Paris' chef Francis Foucachon's offering a Twinkie <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>during<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>his dessert course would be. Unfortunately, the chef would have to add<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>poison to the plastic-wrapped Twinkie to complete the analogy, because <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>conclusions of Wilson's booklet are utterly toxic in their effect on <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>race<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>relations, historical understanding, Biblical hermeneutics, and <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Christian<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>social and cultural engagement.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>A diet of nutritionally empty starch, sugar, and artificial fluff<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>guarantees poor physical health -- but its effect, at least, is <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>contained<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>within the junk food junkie. Unfortunately, followers of Wilson's <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>theology,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>history, and manner of cultural engagement willingly gorge themselves on <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fluff and filth he offers and then begin other churches and other<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"ministries" devoted to Wilsonian ideas and ideals. That's bad for <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>those<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>followers, a disgrace for the Church and its witness in the world, a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>horrific way of living in the culture around us, and a toxic blow to the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"truth, goodness, and beauty" Wilson insists is the fruit of the Gospel.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>He has every right to say what he says; I have every right to judge what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>he says to be insipid and vile. And if there's a Truth who is our <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ultimate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>judge, as both Wilson and I believe, I would quake before Him if I <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>persisted<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in using His Word to defend the utterly, despicably indefensible.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>And now I really do intend to take a Vision break . . . Happy Holidays <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>all of you!<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Keely<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com">www.keely-prevailingwinds.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:30:38 -0800<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>From: <A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>To: <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>; <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>;<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of expression<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul Rumelhart blindly hypothesizes:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>"I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>valid work of historical research, . . . "<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Here you go, Mr. R.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for yourself. It's a fair<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>attempt at third grade fiction.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><A href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm">http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Seeya round the plantation, Moscow.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Tom Hansen<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Moscow, Idaho<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On Wed, December 15, 2010 10:23 pm, Paul Rumelhart wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I don't think your "city test" is measuring what you think it is.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Instead of being a valid measure of the amount of hate in a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>particular<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>idea, it's measuring how emotionally invested people are in the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>topic.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>As I've said before, in some places in this country you would find<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>certain basic ideas that I find completely reasonable to elicit a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>strong<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>negative reaction. This reaction says more about the person reacting<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the statements than it does about anything else.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. It wasn't pertinent <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>right to express his opinions. I'm just trying to say that a stance<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that some people vehemently disagree with and that some people would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>find offensive does not necessarily equate to being hate speech. A<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>study, for example, that showed that members of ethnicity A have a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>much<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>lower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B may be seen as <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>completely<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>incorrect and grossly offensive to members of ethnicity A, but <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>be classified as "hate speech"? I would say no, not if it's a valid<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>scientific study. If Doug's book is a valid work of historical<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>research, then I wouldn't classify it as "hate speech" even if it's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>conclusions would get you beat up on the street in Spokane. Your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion may be different, so we might just have to agree to disagree<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this one.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>If we try to use the test that if someone finds something offensive<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>then<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it must be hate speech, then you get strange situations where people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with no ill will towards members of a particular group might<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>inadvertently offend someone and thus have their speech classified <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"hate speech". All I'm saying is that the common sense definition of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"hate speech" would be speech showing hatred towards something. How<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this definition changed into some sort of marker that a particular<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech offended someone is beyond me.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt kicked in <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>city. But none have the level of predictability of the city test. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would not have any reason, in general, to think "Were I to go to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Spokane today, I'm likely to get my butt kicked." But you would <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>plenty of reason to think that were you to go to Spokane today and,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>say, hand out fliers that claim slavery in the US was a "paradise <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>which slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their masters" that you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>won't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>do it, right? You know and I know what will happen. You'll go to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Spokane one day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you'll<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>know<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you'll at least have a bad day, an unpleasant experience in <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Spokane.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Maybe you should just trust me on this one. I keep saying "try it"<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you shouldn't try it because I KNOW what will happen.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>You seem to think that Wilson is more naive than I do. I tend to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>give<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>him more credit and think he is more clever than you do. But even <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>if<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Wilson is ignorant, I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether or<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the slavery book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>below. It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>particular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who said<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't mean that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wasn't hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise,"<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how ignorant<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the person was who said it? Again, consider the Elizabeth Smart <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>case.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>It would be offensive to suggest, in public, that she enjoyed being<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. If you said <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in public it would be offensive. If you tried to justify saying it <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>by<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>saying you actually believed it that would not justify the offense. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. It<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>isn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>exam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are some<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>things that people should know better and that kidnapping is wrong,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that holding someone who committed no crime against her will is <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrong<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are among them.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I don't see how moving from the single case of Elizabeth Smart to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>general case of slavery makes your story any more plausible. For<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>crying out loud, Americans went to Africa and kidnapped other human<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>beings, held them against their will, sold them for profit, abused<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>them, and forced them to work without pay. What about this story<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sounds like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treated<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>while they were held against their will? How twisted of a world <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>view<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would one have to have in order to come away with the idea that <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was anything<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>less than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be enough to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>tell<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you that slavery is wrong. The only way that you could possibly<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>justify it is if you were to think that the people held as slaves<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>were, as you said, "sub-human." I see no other possibility. Now <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>we've<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>moved from Wilson's book to the kind of stuff you do consider to be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hate speech and it was not a long trip.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>And that is exactly why the claims of Wilson's book are wrong. The <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>US<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>practice of slavery was justifiable ONLY on the assumption that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>blacks<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are sub-human. That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>moment's thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slavery<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>public<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would incite violence and that is why it is hate speech. It is a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>very<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>natural progression from Wilson's claims to claims that even you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>admit<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>And don't try to justify it all by appealing to Wilson's religious<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>beliefs. It isn't as if religion is some kind of "get out of <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>civility<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>free" card. I'm certain that the folks who crushed the twin towers<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>actually believed that they were doing the right thing because of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their own warped religious views. In reflective moments I might <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>think<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that this mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>most of the time I think their beliefs were so warped that they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't worth<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>noting that they had warped beliefs and noting that religion is no<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>excuse for wrong action. At the very least, even if Wilson is as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>naive<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as you think he is, I would still say the same things I've been<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>saying: that his ignorance has gone too far and much of what he <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>says<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is offensive and should not be said in a civil society. If he is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ignorant certainly he needs folks to shake some sense into him. And<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that's giving him the "benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'm<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pretty sure he is not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>change what I say either way.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Paul Rumelhart <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Can't you get your ass kicked in a city for any of a number of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>reasons?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>alley<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong person in the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>eye?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I don't think that Doug Wilson's book on slavery is hate speech,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>because I believe that he truly believes what he's written and <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>he's not intending to insult anyone. He may be seriously wrong, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would expect that something should be called "hate speech" only <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>when<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>involves speaking in such a way as to show hatred for a group <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>based<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>solely on a person's membership in that group. For example, if he<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>had<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>said "blacks are a sub-human race and won't amount to anything if<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>someone doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>classify<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that as hate speech with respect to the non-law definition. In <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fact,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that's a common theme I heard from more than one person growing up<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>idyllic Idaho when I was a kid. It's not something I ever agreed<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but it was common to hear it in conversations on the subject of <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>race<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>relations. In fact, back then, there were places where you could <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>your ass kicked if you walked in off the street and tried to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>describe<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>how black peopl!<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>e are as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>making<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such statements into "hate speech" by your definition. Intent should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>matter.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Anyway, I also appreciate the civil conversation. Especially <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>knowing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that this is an emotionally charged topic for a lot of people.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Paul,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>There are a lot of issues here. No one is helped if we jumble <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>them<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>up<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and forget which one we're talking about.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>believe it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legal<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>restrictions<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling fire<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>crowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>up.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>We<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>agree.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>In your previous post to me you mocked my clam that Wilson's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pro-slavery book was hate speech. I gave this definition: speech<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>protected<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>protected individual or group." The "city test" (as I'll call it)<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>test to see if something is hate speech. If you can say it on a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>city<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>street and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>city, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the idea<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>well<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you would <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>beat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST their WILL. Does<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sound like paradise to you? Would anyone in their right mind <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>think<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that being kidnapped, held against ones will, and forced into <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>labor<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with no pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>whatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a single<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>case<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>-- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive to suggest that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>she<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>enjoyed being kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>To<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suggest it about the US institution of slavery is even more<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offensive,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such an absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>make<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such a suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>one<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI historians <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>refute it. It is without academic and social merit. Its only<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>purpose<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is to make people angry. That is hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the city test. Just find <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>one<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>black man NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Then<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>try to convince him that it isn't offensive. See where you get. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>cannot take this crap to anywhere other than an on-line blog in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Idaho<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and get away with saying it without getting punched in the nose <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>having your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>want<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>we'll put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>conduct the test because someone will need to take you to the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hospital<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you up.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered down at all. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>could try the city test with a variety of other statements and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>LIKELY<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you won't get punched. There is something special about the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suggestion<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that slavery was paradise, something that you still don't seem to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>If you tried the city test, you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>asking you to put your nose where your theory is and see what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>happens.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>You won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>book<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I've ever<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>had<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>no<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>one mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or told me to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>take<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>off-line. So I thank you for that! Though I'm a bit worried that <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>merely the calm before the storm.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Best, Joe<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Paul Rumelhart <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book could <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>only<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>happen here and practically nowhere else in the country. You <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>take<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>book to a street corner in almost any city and try to give the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>explanation you are giving below. Do it. I am serious. You <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>won't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>if you did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>It<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>quite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a diverse<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>population and try this experiment and see what happens. You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>won't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>do<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it and you know it. That should tell you something about your <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>own<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>attitude toward your own argument. You can only give it in the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad argument!<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>views<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slavery. That means that I'm often in the position of trying to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>protect someone's right with whom I disagree, since they are <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>often<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the ones that people are trying to censor.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>This idea that people should not express their opinions because<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>other<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people might get upset is basically what I'm fighting against. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>No,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wouldn't want to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug. I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>benefits of gay marriage either. That doesn't mean that I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>shouldn't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>talk about it.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>other day it is speech that "may incite violence or prejudicial<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>action<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>against or by a protected individual or group, or because it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Say<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>any reasonable definition. And the thought experiment noted<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>above,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>well as your unwillingness to try to provide the justification<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>below<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in pretty much ANY context other than this one, shows I'm<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>And<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I never said the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violent<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>rhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>seem<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>blind to that truth.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>unworkable. All you have to do is disparage a group and it's <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech by that definition. I think many people on the far right<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>let<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their emotions rule their responses too often. There, that would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>qualify as hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>did<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>grow up in a place where folks could get away with saying the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>kind<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>crap that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>saying.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>So<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>experience of all of this and of watching otherwise decent <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>folks<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>like<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>anything<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>could have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there were<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>butchers<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my friends grew up in concentration camps, as well. Nazi <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Germany<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not something I just read about in history books or heard about<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>films. I actually heard some of the stories from actual <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>survivors<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>concentration camps. I saw and interacted with these people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>often. I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was told on a regular basis by people who suffered to never<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>forget<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I won't.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>without<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fear of getting their asses kicked or worse. I think that should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the ideal, not some sort of accident of location to be chastised<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>about.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>I go back east a few times each year since my family and my <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>best<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>friends still live there. Years ago I talked about the slavery<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>book<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and the regular criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>parents<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany. They<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>started<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with the gays and with the less populated groups and then moved<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>from there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would have<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>been<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>unthinkable but this year we actually had a man run for <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>office whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons posted<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>his<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website. Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons? <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Look<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>here:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/">http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>friend<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>run<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>into<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>these folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>give<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>up<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the fight to try to shake some sense into this town. It is just<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>possible. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>insulting<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>mistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>choice<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>me.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I would think that if you best want to fight the kind of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>totalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fight<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an individual's right to freedom of expression, among other <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>rights<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>like the right to believe as one wishes and the right to be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>different<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>from the norm. You can't have freedom of expression if you try <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>define it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever your standard<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>You have to take the bad with the good, or you don't have <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>anything<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>at<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>all.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I suspect that if some group tried to do what the Nazis did in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Germany here, I'd be one of the first targets. I wouldn't agree<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the silencing of opposition voices, and I'd say so loud and <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>clear.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I'd be fighting on the "right" side, as far as most people are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>concerned, which would be a relief from what I'm currently doing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>which is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>From<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>perspective, though, I'd still be fighting for the same thing.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I trying<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to silence Christ<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Church<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay the hell out of my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>way<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>let me say what I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensive<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>regular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>generous<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>nature, so you better allow my speech too.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>My<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>comments aren't meant to try to silence anyone. I'm just trying <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>put my opinion on the matter out there.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed paradise in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>which<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their masters is hate speech? You may disagree with it, lots <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people whose ancestors had a considerably worse experience <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>he<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>describes might disagree with it, but that doesn't make it <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech. I think that he truly believes this, because he knows<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>many of the men that owned slaves at that time professed to be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Christian, and the Bible apparently talks about slavery as an<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>everyday occurrence, so it must be something that God would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>approve<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of. So he selectively reads history and picks out what he <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>thinks<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>supports this ideal and glosses over what doesn't. A very easy<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>trap to fall into. That doesn't make his book hate speech. It<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a historian), but it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doesn't make it hate speech.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>And I fully support his right to express his opinions on the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>matter.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>"Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website. If our bar is so low that that website can trigger<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>cries<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of "hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>almost<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>any<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website is offensive to somebody."<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd? For<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>crying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slavery.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>They were noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helped<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>remove<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>neo-Nazis up north. Did I make that up too?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Again, come back east with me just once and try telling your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>story<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took over<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Germany,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I'll tell you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself had<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>much<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to do with it.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></A>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Ted Moffett wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Two separate responses in body of text below. This fourth<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>post<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>today<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sang<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></A>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Ted Moffett wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com <A href="http://yahoo.com"><http://yahoo.com></A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><A href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>"According to my views on freedom of expression, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a disease that should be purged from the world."<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>and earlier:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><A href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>something that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>isn't just hyperbole."<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>eyes,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>discussion on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>disease<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>roll<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>your eyes,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>statement?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Are politically correct statements more harmful to the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>world<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>than<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>interpreted the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>statements on the NSA website to imply?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I see the point you're making. I wasn't suggesting that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>point,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I was<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suggesting<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that to avoid feeding the trolls. Which is, really, what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>It appears the slippage of language strikes again...<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct." I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was asking, why object so strenuously to those who make<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct statements, if this is what you think some on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision2020<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website? What is the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>major<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>harm<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in someone making a politically correct statement on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision2020,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>if<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Are these statements more harmful than statements that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suggest<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>violence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website? I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>understand you do not think there is any real threat <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>implied<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>by<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA website, but others perhaps disagree. What is the major<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>problem<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Maybe<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>focuses<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I think are not very important issues.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>under<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>guise of political correctness has a negative effect in the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>long<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>run. It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mind<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>freely about what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>he perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>whatever<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>changed<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>his<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>mind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself. He<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>may<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>harbor<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>simple<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>way<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>blowing off steam. So he has a run-in with one someday, and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>gets<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>violent. Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that type<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of person, because it's one way of getting back at them. You<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>idea. If there were no societal prohibitions about talking<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>about<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it, he<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>might learn that other people like people of that type just<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fine,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that they are actually really nice, usually. He might even <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>discussion with one that turns into a friendship, after the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>first<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>bit of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>arguing and name-calling dies down.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website. If our bar is so low that that website can trigger<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>cries of "hate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offensive to somebody. I'd rather save the phrase to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>describe<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>things<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that are undeniably hate speech. What's the harm in having<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>language like that on their website? People might get a bad<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>impression<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of Moscow is one reason I've heard. Tough. We can only <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>control<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>what we<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>do ourselves. We don't have the right to try to censor <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>others.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>If people think that there is a real threat on the website,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>call<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>police. Making threats is against the law. Just be aware <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have a definition of "threat" that the website may fail to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>meet.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>It's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>just my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>then<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wouldn't be talking about this subject so much. I do value<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>freedom of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>expression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is here.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>be a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>focus<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls." But in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>responding<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>criticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"trolls? You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website discussion in this thread, by referencing it in <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>first<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>post.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website was<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hoping for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this kind of reaction. They were trolling the people that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>watch<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>them,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and a few of them took the bait. If you don't want trolls to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>continue<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>trolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Point,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>laugh,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>roll your eyes, and move on. If that's all the reaction they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they'll find someone else to bait. That's the method I've<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>learned that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>works best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>forums.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>It<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>didn't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have anything to do with trying to suppress the actual point<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>were<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>trying to make.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>criticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>advised regarding the NSA website? You think, if I have<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>understood<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ill<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>will<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>between NSA and those of differing ideologies. So I suppose<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>think<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that less criticism of NSA will encourage them to express<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>more<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>tolerance of "secularists?" I doubt it. When an <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>insititution<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>higher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>against<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>others<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>who do not share their ideology, to argue this approach<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>only<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>appears<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an attempt to silence public discussion on substantive <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>issues<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>effect many people, which it also appears you cannot be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>advocating,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>given your emphasis on freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>secularists. Their education on religion is none of my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>concern.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>They<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>can go to the grave believing that secularists are out to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>hunt<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>them down<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and convert them. I don't really care. I don't feel the need<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>make<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>do.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>In<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fact,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I'd hate a world like that. My stance is simple. Everyone <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>has<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>right to think whatever they want, believe whatever they <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>want,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and have<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>whatever view of whatever topic they want. I don't care how<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>horrendous<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their beliefs or views are to others. I also believe that <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>right to express those views however they want, keeping in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>mind<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they don't have the right to force others to listen to them,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't have the right to harm others. If they want to put on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that they think that secularists probably eat children for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>breakfast, so<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>what? If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it, then<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>person<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that committed that action. There are very few cases where I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>advocate for censoring their website. The text they have on <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>now<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doesn't even come close.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Christianity<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>worth<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>public<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>discussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>power<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Consider<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>( <A href="http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm">http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm</A> ). There is no<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>doubt<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this law is in part the result of a religious view that NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>shares<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho. And they <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>vote.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>As<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Moscow<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>City<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Council passed.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk about<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fundamentalist<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Christianity and the ills they imagine are there. I just <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>think<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people that I've been assuming all along are for freedom of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>expression<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>shouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebody<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>says<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offends<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>them. I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>care. What did provoke me to write my little diatribe were<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>indications that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>coming<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>up. I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>but<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>at the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>time I thought they were advocating for taking the site <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>down.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>also<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>saw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive button<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>mine. I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "we<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fight<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>secularism as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"hate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>crime". Stranger things have happened.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Let<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>say what they like. It's better for all of us in the end.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked by<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>anyone<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>from NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>does not address the real influence based on behavior that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>such<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>rhetoric has on the local, state and national level,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>regarding<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>at<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>least four very important issues (I'll skip the alleged<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>association<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"Southern<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Slavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religious<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>tolerance<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>understanding between those of all religions, spiritual<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>worldviews, or<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>those of no particular persuasion on these matters, and the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>US<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pursuit<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>tainted<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>US<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>internationally, by those of differing religions:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><A href="http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm">http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>From website above:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>said:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>[our<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>military men and women] out on a task that is from God.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>That's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>what we<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>plan<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that that plan is God's plan."<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I'm all for people discussing these issues. I'm not for any<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>attempt to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get the NSA to change their website other than simple pleas<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they do so. What people are discussing is not the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>implications<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of their<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>viewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their text<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is violent and whether or not something should be done about<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>problem,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it's<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>true. As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>debate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>rages along nicely. I just haven't seen much of it on here<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>regards<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to this topic. I admit, though, that I haven't been <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>following<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>all<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that close. I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>thoughts on<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully others<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>would<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>put<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this in perspective.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>"Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>want to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>purge from society. Advocating purging a point of view is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>alarming<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>language. Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>literally?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>But consider this example: I define publicly exposing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>undercover CIA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>must be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"purged" to protect the necessary for national security<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>assassinations<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>carried out in secret by the CIA.. Thus in purging<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness in this example, I am supporting government<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>secrecy<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>regarding CIA assassinations. It might be justifed to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>purge<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>somone<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>national<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>security.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>behaviors, the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>support<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Wikileaks.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I think you are taking me too literally. It's not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correct<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>statements, which is basically any statement not involving<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>race,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>light,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>object to. It's people feeling like they cannot make<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>politically<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>incorrect statements because of some sort of societal<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pressure<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>think is a problem. When I said that I think "political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness" is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a problem, I was referring to the very idea that there are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>things that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>we cannot talk about because they might offend somebody,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>which<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is an<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>idea I object to. Not talking about any one of these areas<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a society<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>helps only in the short term. Real discussion is what <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>heals<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wounds,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>You're example above referring to political assassination<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>isn't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the sort<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of political correctness I was referring to, but while we<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>subject, I would say that keeping information about the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>whereabouts and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>covers for assassins should be kept secret. However, the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>fact<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>US government is sanctioning assassinations should be out <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the open so<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that the American people can let their congressmen know<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>whether<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they think the US should be engaging in such behavior.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>course,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>expression,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>can impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Look<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>at what<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>happened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>build<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>up<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>frightening<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>example<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of media seized by a form of patriotic political <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that kept<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the US public woefully misinformed. The example of the <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>firing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of Imus<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an example<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>abuse of political correctness. I wonder if you think Imus<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>should<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have been fired for what some claim was an explictly racist<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>comment?<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players he<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>referred<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>this manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>were<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>deeply<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offended by his statement.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I knew that you were not referring to the sort of political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>was<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>simply saying that advocating purging something from <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>society,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>like<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political correctness, is alarming language, that can be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>twisted<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suit nefarious agendas. I was making no statement on the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>an<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>example. My example was probably not a good one to make my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>point.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>construct a better example.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></A>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><PRE>I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>own.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>I think the freedom of an individual or group of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>individuals<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to express<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>themselves is sacrosanct. The freedom to express your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion should be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>society.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>There are very few limits that should be placed on <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>speech,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>my humble<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinions. I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>agree with libel laws, for example. On the other hand, I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>disagree with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>obscenity laws probably universally. If groups want to <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>get<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>together and<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>form islands of information in which certain ideas are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>suppressed, I'm<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>for that, too, as long as other options exist. For<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>example,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>if someone<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>wanted to create a separate internet targeted at <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>children<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that enforced<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it's own censorship, I would be OK with that. If parents<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>were OK with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>then<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>should be allowed to do so without repercussions if <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>their<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>child ends up<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>favorite boogey<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>man is.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Our<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>government<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>works *for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>us*. They should only have secrets in very narrowly<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>defined<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>areas for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>very specific reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>because it will<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>The<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>secrets in a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>reasonable world.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>According to my views on freedom of expression, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>a disease that should be purged from the world. Instead <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>helping, it<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>just sweeps the problem under the rug. If a person hates<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>blacks because<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of an incident when they were younger, or because they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>just<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't like<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>people who are "different", then they should be free to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>express that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>opinion. Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>will<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>probably<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ensue, but this is healthy. This tendency by people to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>shun<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>these sorts<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>anyway).<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>community,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>I might as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>child<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>relate<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to freedom<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of expression. These laws have been expanded so much <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>under<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the guise of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"save the children" that they are insane. In Australia,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>one<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>man was<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>engaged in<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>having sex, and was convicted under that countries child<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>pornography<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>laws. In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>manga<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>comics<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>from Japan that contained drawings of children having <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>sex.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Was Bart<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Simpson actually hurt by this? Or the fictional Japanese<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>schoolgirl? I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>can understand the prohibition against possession of <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>real<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>child porn<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>(because it creates a market for such things) though I<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>agree with<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>it completely. I think it should be a prohibition <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>against<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>*distribution* of child pornography, not simply<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"possession",<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>if for no<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>other reason than people might be likely to hand it over<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>law<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>enforcement without the fear of going to jail <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>themselves.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Prohibition<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>So what does this mean to us? It means that if something<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>offends you,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you should suck it up and learn to live with it. Grow <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>thicker skin<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>somewhere.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>Freedom of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>trump<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>"freedom<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>from being offended". The minute you allow the idea that<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>some things<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>just<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>thrown the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>concept of freedom of expression out the window. Now<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>you'll<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>have a<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible"<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>tends<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>to match the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>ideals of the people who are in power at any given <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>moment.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>of<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>expression is<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>that they most often end up defending things that they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>might<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>vehemently<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>disagree with. They defend the speech of people they<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>simply<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>don't like<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>personally offended<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>threatened.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>the<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>NSA<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>website,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>right to be as<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>inane with their metaphors as they wish. I applaud them,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>really, for<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>correctness.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>Paul<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>change<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>and the Realist adjusts his sails."<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>- Unknown<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>======================================================= <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> List services made available by First Step Internet, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE> <o:p></o:p></PRE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>