[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flame Wars



Fangey, re:

>lets see you now make a more
>cogent argument by citing examples, starting with this one...

If you insist. Unlike you, I don't have all day and night to post to the
list, but with today being the Saturday before I take a week of vacation,
what the heck.

1) Re. the concept of moderated discussion lists, newspapers, magazines,
journals, television shows, town meetings, and PTA gatherings: 

>And unlike them, people here get there [sic] subscriptions for FREE and
nobody here
>is being PAID to supply written information.

You don't seem to understand, do you? A communication medium's PRICE has
nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that it is PRIVATELY operated and
hence can be moderated. Neither does whether or not the medium's
contributors get PAID to contribute have anything to do with whether it can
or should be moderated. (Ever pick up a free newspaper at, say, a music
store or listen to any radio station?). It's understandable that you seem
preoccupied with the monetary value of things a sole indicator of value,
given your many posts that reflect your need to make publicly known the size
of your wallet. 

2) Re. someone on a newsgroup pleading for less public bickering, flaming, etc.,
and it hardly qualifying as 'censorship' or even 'attempted censorship':

>The act of asking is not in itself "censorship", however, the idea or concept
>of "suppressing what is objectionable" is as you'd say, "attempted
>censorship". Because we cannot agree as to what is "objectionable", can we?

Correct. And that's all the person is doing, ASKING you to stay on topic or
to cut down the flames. So, why, when these individuals ASK you to be more
courteous, do you respond with a "see-they're-trying-to-censor-me" messiah
complex? This is the type of paranoid mindset that I referred to in my last
post. 

3) Re. my vulgar-guy-in-the-diner and burning-the-picture-of-Christ analogies: 

>Unfortunately, all your analogies (or examples) are those of physical things
>which people may have a hard time avoiding. 

Precisely. It is based on the very concept of a 'public space'. The problem
with many libertarians (which I would guess you are, correct?) is that they
don't work their philosophical positions out fully and logically. When these
'naive libertarians' deny the very possibility of there existing minimal
community standards (or codes of 'unacceptable public behavior'), they do so
on self-defeating relativist grounds. If we were to carry your position on
the grounds of moderated-discussions or crass-behavior-in-a-diner to its
full logical extension, we would have anarchy (people being able to yell
fire in movie theatres, whip their private parts out in front of children,
etc.). In essence, the position of 'naive libertarianism' collapses into
that of philosophical anarchism. Check out an intro. to political theory
textbook or a book about U.S. Supreme Court decisions. You must have the money. 

Well, gotta go -- I hear Bob Mould is about to cover Stevie Ray Vaughan's
Pride and Joy! :)

Hope this helps...

Dave
http://www.the-spa.com/thirteen