> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Erik Reuter
[snip]
> > However, rude behavior is not an expression of an idea.
>
> This statement is full of opinion and moral judgement masked to look
> like an absolute. What is rude is opinion, and yours differs from
> mine. And even some things that I imagine you consider rude CAN be a
> good way of conveying and idea to someone else (not everyone learns the
> same way, eg., sticking your hand in someone's face; rude, you say? not
> if you are blind). So, your statement is not only misleading, it is
> wrong.
Erik, you've made a substantial error in logic there. The premise was rude
behavior. It isn't logical to disagree with the premise. You've raised a
different issue, as to whether or not "rude behavior" can be defined. You
seem to be suggesting that rude behavior is purely relativistic and thus can
only be defined by individuals, not by a group. If so, I'd say, poppycock.
We're not just a bunch of individuals; a community is greater than the sum
of its parts. We do have shared notions of civility; you seem to be
refusing to acknowledge their existence. Is that right?
...
> Well, not exactly. I thing Brin-L is full of interesting people and
> entertaining and stimulating discussions. That might be considered a
> community. My disagreement is with people who say that one cannot post
> something that upsets the majority of the "community", and justify it
> with peace & love.
There's that straw man again. Who among us has said that one cannot post
something that upsets the majority? Are you equating "upsets the community"
with anti-social behavior? While it is certainly true that anti-social
behavior upsets the community, not all "upsetting" communication is
anti-social. I certainly try to provoke people around here, but in a civil
manner as much as I'm able, with apologies as I can muster them when I fail
to be civil.
Promoting a free flow of ideas requires people not to dump on each other.
To a great extent, it's as simple as that.
> I am a member of a civilization does NOT mean that
> everyone must bend their thoughts to the majority opinion, it means that
> we should tolerate others the way they are and infringe on others life
> and liberty as minimally as possible while trying to achieve what we
> desire, either by ourselves or with like-minded individuals.
I don't know if anyone has pointed out the hypocrisy here, but will. How
the hell does this fit with your teasing and taunting of Jeroen or your
defamatory statements about his mental health? That's minimal force like
using missiles to stop freeway speeders. How "free" is Jeroen to speak
after getting that kind of stuff dumped on him? How free are you to
participate here as a result of his counter-dumping? It is a pretty weird
freedom that condones personal attacks.
Throughout history, people have needed rules in order to live in freedom.
Over time, we have figured out how to increase personal liberty, making
those rules less and less restrictive, less a matter of law and increasingly
based in socialization. But the Internet doesn't do away with the need
altogether, as I hear you suggesting.
Nick
