Subject:
|
Re: What is spam? (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:49:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
713 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott A wrote:
> > > > There are real issue out their (sic)
> > > > which are worth talking about
> >
> > Loss of first amendment rights (while the populace cheers on the loss) in
> > the US *is* a real issue, whether you like it or not.
> >
> > In fact, whether you *understand* it or not, actually, since you have
> > demonstrated with your slurring and sniping and rails against child
> > pornography that you don't understand what the first amendment actually
> > means or why it is important.
>
> I do not think I have metioned child in this thread... but you are correct,
> I do not understand it. Do you support child pornography? What about child
> prositution?
I think he was referring to your efforts to veer the debate
in an attempt to make First Amendment = Child Pornography.
Granted, there's room for a .debate there, but that's not the
crux of the matter (nor, technically, is it a problem with
the First Amendment--child porn is *illegal* in every state
of the US, and just because people still do it doesn't mean
that the First Amendment is to blame).
> > > > It
> > > > often surprises me how big news stories in the US/world(1) never make it to
> > > > this group, instead we talk about how much morals a stone can have.
> >
> > "how many morals" or "how much morality" would be the correct usage, I think.
>
> Is this the best you can do?
I'll give it a go. One thing I've learned after many (too many?)
years of being in the ivory tower is that people like to think
that solving problems is always 100% a matter of direct addressing
and that no ancillary concerns should *ever* come into the picture.
It's the number one reason why humanities programs all over the
world now suffer from a severe lack of funding and why children
(now young adults!) lack basic contextualization and problem-solving
skills. Sure, the question of whether a stone has morality (if you
want to use that example) may not be *directly* relevant to political
parties in Turkey, but the implications are that we derive under-
standings about the nature of our world by pushing at the
philosophical boundaries. Functionalist reasoning isn't always
bad, but in the case of questions with grey areas, we need to
broaden the search for answers--pick up your Shakespeare, grab
that Orwell, crack open a volume of Bertrand Russell's best.
Besides, this is lugnet.debate, not lugnet.events.world.momentous.
I don't think anyone would seriously debate whether or not the
stories you cite are important. People just didn't feel like
talking about them--if you *did*, why didn't you start a thread
based on one or more of them, instead of faulting us for what
we *do* talk about and trivializing them as mere exemplars?
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
