On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
"The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom."
Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself
think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one
or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that
that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep
changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you
don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should
convince anyone.
Alternatively, if you think that is a real, convincing argument, let me
just state for the record that your arguments aren't _real_ arguments.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpPwyhqoibPo.pgp
Description: PGP signature