Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (171917)	7/15/2003 6:42:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579417

When reasonable conservatives like yourself defend people like her I haven't spent much time defending her. However I have defended any number of people on specific issues without necessarily being anywhere near total agreement with their ideas, or being supportive of the way they state their ideas. Like most of the right, she was once again calling liberals treasonous "I don't think that is an accurate statement. If you leave out "like most of the right" it would be more accurate." Well, you have just answered your question from above. If you really believe liberals are treasonous then please don't bother to post to me. Ted, when you are upset with what you think I say, please use that as motivation to reread carefully what I actually did say. In this case you quoted me so I would have thought you would have read the words but maybe you did not. To sum up what I said and what lead to what I said. Coulter called at least some liberals traitors. You said "like most of the right she was once again calling liberals treasonous". I said "I don't thin that is an accurate statement. If you leave out "like most of the right it would be more accurate". Lets see what happens to the statement if we leave out "like most of the right". It becomes "she was once again calling liberals treasonous". She meaning Coulter. So if you leave off "like most of the right", you get something like "Coulter called liberals traitors". If you don't leave off "like most of the right", you get a statement that amounts to an assertion that most of the right called liberals traitors. That statement is inaccurate and that is why I said you should leave off "like most of the right". However you answered my point about leaving "like most of the right" off by saying - " Well, you have just answered your question from above. If you really believe liberals are treasonous then please don't bother to post to me." Your response does not logically respond to my statement. My statement can be summed up and simplified as "it is not true that most of the right calls liberals, traitors". But you took it as me saying that liberals are traitors. Your interpretation is not at all related to the actual statements I posted. It surprises you that an attack consisting of calling honorable Americans traitorous or treasonous or a detriment to their country is met with a vigorous reaction? If a group or college or other forum doesn't want the speaker to speak then he or she should not be invited. If a member of the group that did invite the speaker objects to the speaker or to what is spoken then he or she should not attend, or perhaps could, when the objectionable words are spoken, make a public show of turning his or her back on the speaker and/or leaving the forum. The angry listener may even, depending on the exact nature of the forum, loudly object or boo. But such objections should not be continual, the speaker, if invited should normally be allowed to speak. Demonstrations outside the forum, or inside after the speech are also entirely appropriate, as would be refusing to invite the speaker back. The proper answer to objectionable speech is more speech, not shouting down and stifling the speech. Tim