On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:32:14PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: > Erik, I was not being condescending or belittling you in any way when
Yes, you were, even if you didn't realize it. Also, your comment about the discussion going down hill while you were gone. Ha! That's not what happened. You made several absurd comments. If it went downhill, that was when it happened. > asked if you had children. Children change their parents in ways that > could never have been anticipated. I could be wrong, but I think that > you would view this issue in a different light if you had children. Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. And you are foolish to talk about temporarily giving up other people's liberties. That is a slippery slope that has often led to disaster. A much better solution is to choose clever and wise leaders who are capable of choosing policies that maximize both safety and liberty. While there are some tradeoffs between the two, the overall situation is NOT zero sum. A skilled leader could use foreign policy to great effect to increase both liberty and safety in the long-term (of course not with the Bush administration in charge...) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
