|
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We have two distinct problems here. One, a definition of evil that is common, and two, who are the good men? Political thought is not diametric, we are on a continuum that suprisingly meets at both ends, totalitarianism. I would err on the side of liberalism of expression (certainly not political liberalism as it is defined in our age. That is my own opinion. Ignore it if you want to.) This thread has been rather inconclusive concerning the role of rhetoric as being the casus belli of mentally disturbed people acting out horrific fantasy. To claim that this current state of affairs is somehow different than all of our history as both humans and Americans is a painful demonstration of the ignorance of that writer. We want what we want for whatever motivation we possess. To give our preferences a moral equivilancy is to deny that ground to someone else. We need a higher standard and in our case it is the Constitution, which allows for change if the people desire it. Will, you are making no case, Cynthetiq, you are willfully ignoring evil. The evil is not liberalism or conservatism, violent speech or cuddly kittycats, it is ignorance. THIS IS MY HUMBLE OPINION. User mileage may vary. The Constitution allows for a degree of violent rhetoric because the government should always be aware that it can be replaced. I would prefer the violence of an epically placed vote, but Jefferson did allow for the concept of applied violence for the greater good. Thus the founding of our country. This wack-job in Arizona chose the one, violence, when the other, voting, was a perfectly available and legitimate choice. It is foolish to think that either side of the political spectrum is not frothing at the mouth at the thought of forcing their vision of the ideal state on the rest of us. Will, you would ask us to accept that in willful ignorance, all facts to the contrary. Cynthetiq, you would ask us, perhaps, not to care either way if it isn't in the purvue of our personal reality. Others exist and thus redefine reality in the common arena. This is the game of human interaction and governance. It is a war and we want our side to win; that is the naked truth. We hold a special disdain for those who do not cotton to our views. The goal should be to understand the nature of the game, not to stiffle the conversation with what turns out to be inane self-importance. And yes, I think Olberman is an utter and complete self-involved, bombastic sanctimonious asshole licking jerkwad. SO I DON'T WATCH HIS SHOW!! Again, no violence is necessary as long as the vote exists, however squelching speech is just for one side to gain acendancy over the other. To deny that fact is to be a liar and that is the greatest threat to our democracy. I agree with Cynthetiq that this forum is not a democracy and that compulsive speech is not fact and can be willfully ignored. Will Cynthetiq suffer from a possible lack of information otherwise ignored? Possibly. Is it my, or your, problem, Will? Not really. Just keep trying to win your political war and I will continue to try to win mine. In the meantime we need to identify and treat the mentally imbalanced, as could have happened with this guy, who didn't even listen to talk radio but was however interacted with by police that very day and who gave off warning signals to classmates and teachers for some time.
__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks
|