SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (63908)12/31/2002 2:32:19 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
And we should surely object when, even if they are accurately quoted from the appropriate context, they are then generalized beyond themselves.

Huh?

Who is "we"?

Lemme see.

You don't know if the editorial is quoted correctly or in context but, if it is properly quoted and in its appropriate context, then "we" should surely object if the comments "are... generalized beyond themselves."

LOL!

I once got riled at these types of comments. They are increasingly a source of entertainment. Looks like Bill--old, wise Bill--has the right idea.



To: JohnM who wrote (63908)12/31/2002 2:49:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hardly. Just bringing the value of dissent to the fore. So long as folk use this slippery slope logic of trying to brand disagreement and dissent as morally unacceptable, just so long is it in danger.

This particular brand of dissent advocates the murder of civilians. Is it morally acceptable to advocate killing the settlers, yes or no?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News