On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and > Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
"The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom." Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should convince anyone. Alternatively, if you think that is a real, convincing argument, let me just state for the record that your arguments aren't _real_ arguments. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgpxWaTaAfVEt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
