Scott,
I am obliged to step in here, since my superogatory statement of my opinion that Stockman Scott should "get a life" prompted these exchanges. While I apologized to you, Scott, and to SS for my ungentlemanly statement, I do not apologize for exercising my Constitutional right to voice an opinion that may be at variance with others. No one should mistake my practice of that right for an attempt to limit or stifle their own wholehearted espousal of contrary beliefs. I offer the following to support these views:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought--not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. [Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 1929]
He who endeavors to control the mind by force is a tyrant, and he who submits is a slave. [Robert G. Ingersoll, 1906]
Neither you, nor I, nor SS aspire to be a tyrant or a slave. My opinion was not expressed for that purpose. My pique with SS is that in his seemingly manic obsession to post, he ignores the social obligation to defend the contents of those posts. This apparent lack of concern for intellectual honesty while bloating the thread was at the root of my comment.
However, I respect the rights of SS to ignore me or state an opinion at variance with mine. Each of us retains the intellectual freedom, yea the right to examine and re-examine that which has been taken for granted. Without the ability to reason and defend one's views, one's freedoms are limited, just as my inability to drive a car would limit my freedom to do so. In stating my opinion, I did not infringe on SS's right to his own. You took offense at my comment. I respect you, Scott. Therefore, as a gentleman, I conceded that I did not need to make that comment.
Intolerance has been defined as being unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression. Did the statement of my opinion constitute intolerance? IMHO, we have an injudicious overapplication of the word "intolerance" without a contemplative understanding of the dynamics of the word. I like Laurence J. Peters enlightening comment, I hate people who are intolerant. In this short sentence, he reminds us that one who lays the charge of intolerance on his neighbor's doorstep returns home to find the carcass of intolerance rotting at his own doorpost. The charge of intolerance is a handy weapon in this politically correct time. In our emotion, we may ignore the full meaning of this inflammatory term, perhaps overlooking the finer point that the statement of an opinion or criticism about the habits of another are not prima facie evidence of intolerance, unless accompanied by an intellectually dishonest attempt to stifle that persons freedom to defend himself.
Time to turn in, Scott. Please continue to reason with me. I always enjoy these discussions.....'nite...jj |
