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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183714)	3/18/2006 12:37:34 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, you've done a common thing, which is take a point and stretch it to the opposite meaning. For example, with voluntary euthanasia, people say it's bad because it will lead to compulsory euthanasia. Huh? Voluntary has a particular meaning which means the person involved chooses. If they don't have sound mind and the wherewithal to decide, then it is not voluntary. If they are cornered and threatened, it is not voluntary. If they are pressured it is not voluntary. If they are persuaded, it might be voluntary [I'd want to see the "persuasion" and the gain to the "persuader"]. You are saying pacifists who argue against war are possibly lending aid to the enemy. For a start, it's very unlikely that pacifists would do that because that would not make sense. Obstruction would also be an offence just as obstructing courts and otherwise preventing legal actions is illegal. The whole point about freedom of thought and expression is that they are nothing more than ideas. They are not threats or conspiracy to obstruct. They are simply arguments for a course of action. In a free world, people can consider all ideas and reject those they dislike. If the people who have their ideas rejected then get criminal and start attacking, obstructing or aiding the enemy, then they are of course a fifth column and need to be dealt with. It seems to me you almost instantly rationalized attacking people who disagree with you. Which is quite scary and what many in the USA complain of these days [with some validity I think]. If you aren't with King George II then you are the enemy, unpatriotic, treacherous and traitorous and ipso facto [another excellent bit of legalese] giving aid and comfort to the enemy and good for lynching. The right to free speech and free thought are easy when the ideas agree with your ideas. When they disagree, that's when the meaning of "free" is tested. Of course, inciting to riot, inciting to attack and threatening are, to me not a lot different from the act. When the Iranian president says he intends wiping Israel off the map, he should not be surprised if 30 minutes later, he is wiped off the map. Free speech doesn't include conspiracy to kill, obstruct, give aid to the enemy etc. Anyway, watch that space "Malcolm Kendall Smith". It is more than a garden variety court martial. I suspect you missed the depth of the situation and the implications. Mqurice