Yep, we've had this conversation before and yes we disagree on it. No need to rehash it (those who want to, read the archives). As for the language thing, it proves to be false. Language is a construct decided upon by people to describe things. If there was no word for rebellion, there would still be an action that resembled rebellion, but would be called 'zoom zoom".
> > Free speech vs. hate speech. > > Lets say I go to a murderer and mention that someone would be > > better off dead and whoever killed him would make some fast > > cash. The murderer kills the person. Am I responsible? I > > never offered him cash, I only implied it. > > If someone went to this guys site and read about who should > > be killed and where they live, then the site owner is liable > > as an accomplice. > > As someone said, Bin Ladin didn't fly the plane but he sure > > suggested it to others to do. > > > > And this is where we come to an end. I'll always say you are not > responsible. So we agree to disagree. :) > > To add a wrinkle to this - it brings up an interesting theory. I assume > everyone here has read 1984. It's been _many_ years since I read it - > but I remember right - there was a theory that if you remove the words > for rebellion, then there would be no rebellion. In other words, if a > person can't communicate a wrong deed, they can't do it. I wonder how > true that would be. > > -ray > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
