Subject:
|
Re: What is spam? (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:46:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1703 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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.
I did not say that in this thread. I cannot remember ever saying it?
> 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?
This is because, generally, I do not view .debate as a place where debates
should start (am I the only one which thinks this?). I view it as a place
where debates which start in other groups should go. Despite that, I have
started threads here - but normally these will relate to past or even
current debates. If anyone wants to change the rules of .debate to stop
debates from starting here - I shall back them.
Scott A
>
> best
>
> LFB
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
