--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > What is fascinating to me is that today on FFL we > have two different controversies running concurrently, > BOTH in my opinion stemming from the same mindset, the > thing you nail so perfectly in your last two sentences. > > Anyone who excludes someone else from spiritual practice > by definition feels that he or she HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SO. > These misguided souls believe that they have the RIGHT > to judge other people, because their view of what is > "right" and "wrong" is superior to that of the people > they are judging. > > Similarly, anyone who chooses to attempt to keep people > from seeing a television show that they don't like feels > that he or she HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SO.
Of course we have the right to attempt to persuade the network to choose not to show the film. That's FREE SPEECH, you shallow twit. Just as you have the right to urge the network to show the film as scheduled, and the network itself has the right to decide whether it will or will not show the film. All those are FREE SPEECH. *These* misguided > souls believe that they have the RIGHT to judge these > films Of course we have that right. So does everybody else. > and decide who gets to see them No, wrong. It isn't us who gets to make the decision. All we can do is advocate one way or the other. THAT is the difference between censorship and free speech. We do not have the right to do the former; we most certainly do have the right to do the latter, as does everybody else. , because *their* > view of what is "right" and "wrong" is superior to that > of the people who they are trying to prevent from seeing > the films that they have judged "wrong." The film is *demonstrably factually inaccurate*. It isn't a matter of judgment. But even if it *were* just a matter of judgment, of course everyone is entitled to decide that their viewpoint is superior to that of others, and of course everyone *does do exactly that*, just as Barry is doing here. > In both cases, it is EGO at work, pure and simple. > There's nothing spiritual about the judgementatlism in > the first case and there is nothing noble about the > attempted censorship in the second. It isn't "attempted censorship," and nobody ever claimed there was anything "noble" about it. It's only about > people who are so lost in their own egos that they feel > they have the right to make decisions that affect other > people's lives, In the case of the film, of course we do not have the right to make such decisions, NOR ARE WE MAKING ANY. We are ADVOCATING. We are not in a position to make decisions. That is up to ABC. BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER than these > other people. > > Hint: THEY DON'T. THEY NEVER HAVE. THEY NEVER WILL. Right. Barry is the one who knows better, of course. <horselaugh> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
