Marsha, > > > At 06:58 AM 7/22/2007, you wrote: > > > >Quoting MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > At 05:29 PM 7/21/2007, Platt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >No. The citizens of communist China have limited freedom compared > > > > > >to citizens of the U.K. > > > > > > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > > > > > How do you know this? Are you a citizen of communist China? Have > > > > > you even been to China? > > > > > > > >Hi Marsha, > > > > > > > >No, I am not a citizen of communist China and I have never been there. > > > >But I have read about citizens of China being arrested for criticizing > > > >their government. They do not enjoy the protections of free speech > > > >that citizens of the U.S. and U.K enjoy. Do you have reason to doubt > > > >this? > > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > How do you know this? > > > >See for example: > > > >http://www.cpj.org/protests/01ltrs/China18sep01pl.html > > > >Do you doubt this? > > I was not there, so I don't know what to think.
Does that mean you don't know what to think about an event if you were not present at the event? > > > Have you spoken to many Chinese > > > citizens? Have you read any books about China? > > > >No and no. > > Where exactly is your information coming from? So reference above, as an example. Otherwise, sources too numerous to mention. > > Are you talking > > > about China today, or China 10 years ago? > > > >China in the last 10 years up to today. > > > > > May U.S. citizen say > > > ANYTHING they please? > > > >Without being prosecuted and thrown in jail? Yes. On college campuses, no. > >On TV and radio, no. In print, yes. > > Have you limited your definition of 'freedom of speech' to print? No. What we say here is not subject to prosecution and jail. But Horse, the moderator, has the power to restrict certain speech, by voluntary agreement of participants. > > > Are there no restraints? > > > >Yes, but not for criticizing the government. > > Have you limited your definition of 'freedom of speech' to > criticizing the government in print? No. > > > May a young boy hold up a > > > sign stating BONG HITS 4 JESUS? Free speech??? > > > >Children are restrained more than adults, for obvious reasons. > > In this case it is not obvious to me. There is nothing in the sign > that I find as harming another. The principle who is in charge of the children disagreed. > > > If you were a > > > Arab-American could you say ANYTHING? > > > >What do you have in mind? > > > > > Your opinions are too general to be > > > meaningful. > > > >How so? > > See above where you seem to be narrowing your definition. Have I clarified my definition for you? > > If you want to peacefully protest a WTO meeting, can you be > > > sure the police won't shoot tear-gas at you? > > > >What's a WTO? > > World Trade Organization. > > http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1029 > > Do you doubt this? Since I wasn't there I don't know what to think. :-) But as a reliable news source, FAIR would not be my first choice. It has an admitted liberal bias. > > > May there be static filters that distort YOUR evaluation, since your > > > understanding doesn't seem to be based on actual experience? > > > >Sure, everyone has static filters. Don't you? I understand a lot about the > >Revolutionary War even though I didn't actually experience it. Are you > >suggesting understanding can only come from actual experience? > > Direct experience is less likely to be contaminated. Static filters may > be correct or incorrect. Right. Except a four or five eyewitnesses to an event will come up with four or five different versions of what happened. > > > Where have your opinions come from? > > > >Like yours, a variety of sources, too numerous to mention. > > I don't mistake my opinion with fact. There's also been plenty of > data to show even direct experience is subject to error. Right. But how do you define a fact as opposed to an opinion? > >Originally you wrote of 'freedom', > > > not 'freedom of speech'. > > > >Right. But the original subject was "Limits of freedom." That would > >include speech wouldn't it? > > > > > > > What is your definition of freedom? > > > > > > > >Restraint from power of another. > > > > > > Who has such restraints from power of another? > > > >The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees restraints from government power. Then > >their a numerous laws restraining power of another, like laws against rape > >for example. > > This reply is stinky. The Bill of Rights is an unactualized > ideal. The government creates laws to enforce its power. Who has > restraint from power of another???????????????? Does such a human > being exist? You don't consider a law against rape to be a restraint against power of another? Why? > > >The definition of > > > freedom is as Gav wrote, 'to be in the present is to be free of the > > > ego'. Freedom is the dynamic now, not socialized static opinion. ARE > > > YOU FREE? > > > >Talk about generalities. :-) But, it seems you and Gav have some static > >opinions, too. But, I could be wrong. > > Dynamic quality is freedom, all else is a combination of freedom and > order. Would you agree? If yes, then your definition of freedom is > merely an ideal. Yes, DQ is freedom. But a definition of any sort depends on relating it to something else. DQ is related to static Q like freedom is related to order. As Pirsig said, "Both are needed." Freedom to express oneself here is an example of freedom as a reality, not an ideal. Platt moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
