Neocon: I admit having misrepresented you.
Still, there is a secondary meaning of (in)consistency I detected.
When you posted 3156
<I did not argue that it is not offensive. I argued that offensiveness to a minority is not alone a sufficient basis to offend the majority...>,
You acknowledged there was offensiveness in the posting the 10nots - if not to you - then to 'a minority'.
And you added that offense was not enough.
So, the majority not only took offense, it added voicing it's offense. This offends the majority, and makes the defense of not enough, enough. At least to get it into court. The law is all but unequivocal, so the offense is transferred to the majority. To the Constitution, an offended majority is not as bad as an outspoken, offended minority. To you, it seems, the reverse is so.
When you posted 3268
<You think it is promotion, I think it is taking advantage of something that has a pre- existing meaning to most pupils, and that it is relevant for anyone interested in our culture to know about.>,
You argue that there is no issue of offensiveness [perhaps from above], only the loss of the pedogological help lent by a powerful document. But the pedogology and the power is in question. Does the 'pre-existing meaning' include the cultural, ethical, and religious, all? Can teachers, judges, and public servants be expected to engage all aspects of the document? Or, will there be 'warped' use, regularly? Can a 'safer', more universal tool be used?
The power of the tool to achieve much in many hands does lend support to your proposition that offensiveness to a few is not sufficient to make a change. Diminishing the available power is a bad principle. Set it against the principle that consistency is power, as is ease of use, as is 'do no harm'. So, for the sake of a more solid and more common foundation in education, I would think the 10nots should be held in reserve for the individuals and the religions.
So why is this all not only lame but absurd? A Libertarian answer to a non-Libertarian question is meaningless.
A Lib. teacher chooses the pedogological tools he considers best to educate his current students. Considerations of the effect on 'society' are unreal. Considerations of the boss are meaningless unless the boss is a person, rather than every voting adult in the country and the country's history.
A Lib. finds moronic the idea that someone can go to court over something non-empirical. First, present damage particulars. Next, include specific responsibilities abrogated. This attitude and suppositioning is for the birds. Lib's need hard evidence, not comparison to some idealistic standard.
Consequently, when a minority offended, do the Lib. treatments: Compete - Become the majority and monopolize all you want. Join - Give up your cosmology for one you do not consider true. Accommodate - Lay back and enjoy the inevitable. Move - Seek someplace where the majority is not the majority.
Personally, I think Lib's are so enthralled with liberty that they refuse to see the subtle and complex powers, so that talk is silenced and a new power arises. So enthralled with what they do know that they fastidiously ignore what they don't. |
