It's a given people on this side of the argument don't like spam, your
conclusion being correct, it still comes down to preference. They prefer
sending spam you prefer they didn't.
They, ERRONEOUSLY, justify sending spam using a political argument
(*their protected right), our side is rejecting politics and its origin,
religion; so, it still comes down to preference, and ultimate authority
rests in man. It comes down to, "Who is to say?"
I argue, and I think the original post argues against their position. I
also argue that the political (based in the religious) needs to be
brought bear to refute them.
I agree with the original post that they improperly use the 1st
Amendment for justification but for the wrong reasons.
*Note: According to the founding documents of the u.S. rights come from
the Creator.
On 11/20/2020 2:45 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their
actions. I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify
what they do by something greater than (outside of) themselves,
albeit wrongly.
It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison
politics (and religion) and have no justification (only personal
preference) for what they do. Curious!
At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who
oppose them.
I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam
collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties,
and moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR
greater good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are
often in 100% contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite
beliefs, but likewise think that their spam is justified by THEIR
"greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my job to determine who is
justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them are justified in
sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.
