Posted by gary g (208.133.217.93) on July 18, 1999 at 15:21:56:
In Reply to: Getting Real and sticking to the Point... posted by Annie on July 18, 1999 at 02:50:48:
boy !!!!
there is sure some fuzzy headed thinking on this board lately
either that or people who don't carefully read before they respond
Christian-bashing ?????
please, spare me from the knee-jerk political-correctness ...
APOLOGIES TO THE BOARD AT LARGE - but this was an unjustified, illogical and completely delusional SLUR & SLANDER which I am not willing to let stand unanswered in the forum in which it was published
and YES - posting on this board is legally a form of publication
my original response to the lady's question about a problem with the CH board being blocked on her computer,was a positive, helpful suggestion about how the poster could retain access to this board, with a comment that I believed the threat she perceived from offensive internet content wasn't as great as she seemed to think
a comment I believe I have the experience to make BTW: in our family we been using 5-6 different computers concuirrently for years, including 3 different internet service routes, for business, personal, medical, investment and professional scientific research purposes...and we just don't have a problem with dangerous or offensive material showing up ...
(of course, unlike my antagonist, I do NOT consider myself an "expert", just a reasonably experienced user)
my response to a request for help was nothing more than:
a: trying to help with a problem and
b: trying to be reassuring about a fear which I believe is relatively groundless ("reassurance" - isn't that on the propriety list anymore ?)
in NO WAY whatsover did I address or criticize her beliefs, intentions, or involve anything beyond the details of the specific issue which she raised - how could I ? they weren't even mentioned
for some strange reason, instead of saying "thanks, that might be worth thinking about" or just ignoring the suggestions if she didn't like 'em,
she then felt the need to come back by launching into a near-hysterical response to my suggestions - offering much to my amazement - some disjoint clamor about sexual addiction, being born-again, and who knows what else that has NOTHING to do with CH or this msg bd - and frankly, who cares ? one way or the other
but in the process, she DID bring up a general topic (internet censorship) which I strongly believe is DIRECTLY related to the process of developing knowledge, ESPECIALLY of the type we need re: CH
YES - I criticized a SPECIFIC class of ACTIONs with which I disagree for very solid, well-thought out reasons, which I stated - I don't care what people's motives for those actions are, or what group they identify themselves with -that's none of my business - what IS my business is how their actions may affect me or mine ..and I DO object to the activity and feel a responsible need to challenge those actions until
I am convinced otherwise by arguiments based on the objective facts of the matter, NOT on WHO or WHAT my debating opponents say they are - I'm interested in the topic & willing to listen to anybody's evidentiary arguments - but PLEASE spare me the conceit that WHO somebody is makes any difference in the validity of their argument
I then pointed out (a report of fact) that many of the people in my area who take the action I disagree with, publicly justify their actions by saying they're doing it because they are Christians - EXACTLY like the lady who responded so strangely to my offer of help as if claiming their motives changed or justified the effect of their actions - to them I'm sure it does, but having personal religious MOTIVES (or political, or lifestyle)does NOT exempt them from challenge of their ACTIONS by people with different opinions and beliefs - they just wish it did - and I only brought THAT whole aspect up in response to the poster's own statement - - hell, if you don't want something discussed, don't bring it up to begin with. AT NO TIME did I criticize anybody for being part of any group, nor did I say anybody did something because they were part of a group, nor did I say that members of any group can be expected to do a particular thing - - it's one of those HEY ! THEY BROUGHT IT UP, NOT ME deals I DID say that in my home area, a frequent activity that I strongly feel is ill-advised and wrongheaded on its own merits (or lack thereof, is often justified loudly in the media, by the people doing it, on the basis that they are members of a certain group That is COMPLETELY different than saying Christians(gays, Republicans, migraneurs, neoNazis) are wrong, or something is wrong because Christians (gays, Republicans, migraneurs, neoNazis) do it in fact - one of the most disciplined, clear-headed, intellectually sound, educational approaches in the world is VERY much based in a Christian religious setting - the Jesuit tradition (AND NO, I am not catholic, much less jesuit) the point is that somebody's MOTIVES for their actions have nothing to do whatsoever with the EFFECT of their actions on others - it is intellectually, ethically and morally corrupt to use ANY condition or inclusion classification as a basis for a premise or action, in case my slanderer missed it - which she obviously did: frankly, I get real real tired of people who want to sling around all sorts of ill-reasoned, illogical acts & declaritives - and then scuttle for cover behind some nicey-nicey "let's all be warm & huggy" dogma to shield them from the fallout "freedom of speech" is a great concept upon which the best knowledge and society is built freedom of speech refers to the ENTIRE exercise, NOT just the speaker's right to yak-
it's reported almost daily in our local paper and on TV - the Portland Maine library only recently held off an attempt to
and that if the major or sole reason they offer for doing something is that they are members of a certain group, then THEY have placed that on the table for discussion
AND THEN claim that the condition or inclusion is exempt from debate about the premise or action - that's a form of circular logic that is absolutely indefensible in any intelligent discussion
the original poster was the one that felt compelled to make a big deal of her religious reasons(which have NOTHING whatsoever to do with CH), for bringing forth a problem which has very little to do with CH to begin with (her computer programs)but she eventually DID raise the topic of internet censorship whether she meant to or not, which IS directly related to ANY research and info-exchange activity conducted over the 'net
BUT
it does NOT mean the speaker has a RIGHT to command everyone to listen silently
it does NOT mean the speaker is free from challenge to what they said
it does NOT mean the speaker has authority to define the terms and conditions under which we must listen
if you don't want your dog bit,fine, keep him on a leash
but don't toss him in the ring and then bitch when he gets nipped