| |
> > Some others hold far different views, that it's appropriate for states to
> > ban things that they personally find objectionable, for example, or that
> > things that they don't personally care for, but which don't threaten rights,
> > are morally wrong and have to be banned.
> >
> > Many of the second class don't grasp the distinction or don't find it valid,
> > that is, they are perfectly OK with a might makes right worldview in which
> > the majority impose preferences by force.
<tummy tuck>
> > Further, they don't even get that
> > they are *taking* this worldview, they prattle about society taking
> > decisions and unconstrained majority rule being fundamentally just.
> Bad! Bad Larry! Go sit in the corner. Prattle is not a constructive word to
> use. It would have done your argument no harm to use 'talk' instead and then
> it wouldn't be a thinly veiled insult. (But other than that, I'm still in
> agreement.)
Chris,
The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least
in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen
words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. This may
be deliberate on Larry’s part – but, if so, it hardly adds weight to his
opinion.
As far is improving debate is considered, the difference between my outlook
and that of others is that I am willing to listen to other’s points, and
concede that they may have valid opinions and weigh them up against my own -
rather than just call it ‘prattle’.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly veiled. It would (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
