Anthony writes:
> I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term
> "freedom
> of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.
This is not what I was using the term to mean.
> Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or
> perjury law)
> and freedom of speech?
There is certainly some tension there, as is well-documented in the
scholarly treatments of the subject.
> The way I understand it, rights cannot be in
> conflict (or tension), and any seeming conflicts (or tensions)
> between your
> rights and the rights of another are simply a misunderstanding of
> one or the
> other right.
Are you just making this up off the top of your head? Of course
rights can be in tension, and they often are.
> I won't speak for Thomas, but I've noticed this independently of
> anyone
> having told me about it.
False memes can also arise from spontaneous generation and mutation.
(Blame cosmic rays, if you want.) Whether you want to focus on your
original perception of what you project upon me or else upon the
significance of how many people share your view, the fact remains --
if you believe what you are predisposed to believe, nothing I can say
will affect your belief. Explaining where your predisposition came
from is up to you -- it's not something I can know about.
> Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true. I'd say the meme of
> assuming good
> faith, especially as it has mutated to be used quite commonly by
> Wikipedians
> (to discourage criticism), is a meme which promotes other memetic
> viruses,
> not one which inoculates against them.
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
> Well, like I said, not something I'm interested in arguing with you
> about.
> It's not my problem, it's your problem.
Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as
"little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems to
me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me. I mean, I'm
personally untroubled by your treasuring of a pet idea, even if it's a
pet idea about how little I supposedly think you are.
--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term
> "freedom
> of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.
This is not what I was using the term to mean.
> Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or
> perjury law)
> and freedom of speech?
There is certainly some tension there, as is well-documented in the
scholarly treatments of the subject.
> The way I understand it, rights cannot be in
> conflict (or tension), and any seeming conflicts (or tensions)
> between your
> rights and the rights of another are simply a misunderstanding of
> one or the
> other right.
Are you just making this up off the top of your head? Of course
rights can be in tension, and they often are.
> I won't speak for Thomas, but I've noticed this independently of
> anyone
> having told me about it.
False memes can also arise from spontaneous generation and mutation.
(Blame cosmic rays, if you want.) Whether you want to focus on your
original perception of what you project upon me or else upon the
significance of how many people share your view, the fact remains --
if you believe what you are predisposed to believe, nothing I can say
will affect your belief. Explaining where your predisposition came
from is up to you -- it's not something I can know about.
> Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true. I'd say the meme of
> assuming good
> faith, especially as it has mutated to be used quite commonly by
> Wikipedians
> (to discourage criticism), is a meme which promotes other memetic
> viruses,
> not one which inoculates against them.
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
> Well, like I said, not something I'm interested in arguing with you
> about.
> It's not my problem, it's your problem.
Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as
"little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems to
me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me. I mean, I'm
personally untroubled by your treasuring of a pet idea, even if it's a
pet idea about how little I supposedly think you are.
--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l