Plateforme Level Extreme
Abonnement
Profil corporatif
Produits & Services
Support
Légal
English
Scary if true
Message
De
24/04/2009 13:33:26
 
 
À
24/04/2009 12:14:33
John Ryan
Captain-Cooker Appreciation Society
Taumata Whakatangi ..., Nouvelle Zélande
Information générale
Forum:
Finances
Catégorie:
Budjet
Titre:
Divers
Thread ID:
01393480
Message ID:
01396281
Vues:
84
>I suspect that any time you hear the word 'freedom', it immediately evokes to you images of crazy-eyed people shooting their neighbours.
>
>I'm saying that complex society requires a system of laws. To succeed, we all need to sacrifice the concept of absolute "freedom" for the greater good. In exchange we receive multiple benefits. Stopping at red signals is an example where we willingly sacrifice our absolute freedom to proceed, for the greater good. This is the discussion into which you have burst with Nazi slogans and accusations.
>
Slogans or accusations? Sometimes you see the forest behind trees, but at times you start insisting on literal perception. Get consistent and number of questions will naturally diminish.

>Do you imply that majority can get their voice heard only through revolutions/coups?
>
>If we're still talking about acceptance of the system of law itself, then yes. If rejection of the system (rather than a particular party or individual) becomes widespread then the system is no longer responding to the greater good, meaning it deserves to be overturned.
>
Who will define this "greater good"? It seems that in your system it is the government defining, creating and distributing it.

>I can just suggest to you that expressing your views on public forum you are inevitably subjected to others evaluation, and when someone walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, then how 'the intended meaning' can change it?
>
>You've created an image in your mind of how I walk, talk and look? And that entitles you to ignore intended meaning in an online forum? OK, I get it.
>
You express your view and this creates the image. What's wrong with that?

>As I said, I'm happy to have a normal discussion in which people consider and respond to others' points rather than trying to create straw-man (straw-duck?) positions to shoot down. See ya.

Does 'normal discussion' means one 'on your terms', i.e. where you freely cut down other side message and compare any opposing argument with clear intention to get guns and start shooting? It is plain unfair.
Edward Pikman
Independent Consultant
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Fil
Voir

Click here to load this message in the networking platform