From: kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan)
Subject: Re: Have no need to fear ... was Re: Freedom of Speech
Organization: Organised?  Here?  Hahahahahahahaha.....
	<1992Oct7.202340.3562@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.202340.3562@memstvx1.memst.edu> ustai@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
{stuff deleted since Tai seems to have answered on my behalf.  Thank you, Tai.}

>>>I am not attempting
>>>to censor your views nor am I claiming that you are depriving me of my rights
>> 
>> Funny.  The previous article by Mr. Tan says just the opposite.  Here
>> is Mr. Tan's statement:
>> 
>>    In article <KYTAN.92Sep29122228@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com>
>>    >kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) wrote:
>>    You seem to want to shove your concept of "rightness" down
>>    other peoples throats, thus depriving others of this "right."
>> 
>> Again, Mr. Tan's original statement indicates that he has little idea about
>> the difference between speech/writing and the physical act of depriving a
>> person of her rights.

>   I realise I am nitpicking, but he did not claim you are depriving him
>of his rights in the first part, and in the second part, he says you seem to be
>depriving others of their rights.  Of course he could be speaking in the
>third-person... but what the heck, I feel nitpicky tonight...  Mr Tan, do tell
>us what you mean.

Well, I stand by my statements.  I am not censoring him...statement number one.
Seemingly clear enough.  And he is not depriving me of my rights,
yet....statement number two.  Again, rather straightforward.  However, Mr. Joe
WANTS to do so, if not physically, then by the process of law.  Depriving a
person of rights need not necessarily be physical but can be achieved by
process of law (if such a law can be passed by people such as Mr. Joe.)  Which
part befuddles you, Mr. Joe?  One?  Both?  None of the above?

>> Essentially, what Mr. Tan is saying is the following.  I'll present two
>> examples.
>> 
>> First, in the '60s, Martin Luther King preached against and condemned
>> racism; his actions constituted speech.  Suppose that some hotheads then
>> interpreted Mr. King's speech and subsequently killed some racist
>> Americans.  By Mr. Tan's reasoning, Mr. King is now responsible for the
>> actions of the hotheads.
>>
>> I strongly disagree.  The hotheads are responsible for their actions,
>> and no one else should be held accountable.

By your logic, then, Adolf Hitler is not responsible for genocide because he
did not physically kill any people personally.  He only espoused it verbally
and in print.

>> Second, in the 90s, a rock band distributed musical lyrics that called
>> for the use of violence.  Some teenagers listened to the lyrics and
>> subsequently committed violence.  The parents of the teenagers sued the
>> rock band and held it accountable for the teenager's actions.  By Mr.
>> Tan's reasoning, the rock band is now responsible for the action's
>> of the teenagers.
>>
>> I strongly disagree.  The teenagers are responsible for their actions,
>> and no one else should be held accountable.

>   Well, if it's suicide, it's pretty much your own decision by
>definition, otherwise it will be murder.

>> Mr. Tan, like many Chinese-cu people, has a uniquely non-Western view
>> of civics, rights, and accountability of people's actions.  The central
>> theme among Chinese-cu people is, "I believe in freedom of speech
>> as long as I am not offended by what you say."  This belief manifests
>> itself in many ways--e-mail harrassment, accusations of "you are suppressing
>> my rights by your very speech" (!), personal attacks, etc.

Sigh.  Mr. Joe, you are hopeless.

>   Ah well, you shouldn't let death threats stop you from spreading the
>truth to the whole wide world.  Besides, the chances of them meeting you is
>very very slim, unless you meet a weirdo.  However, the chinese culture does
>seem to have a record of having less of these weirdos than USA, so you probably
>shouldn't be worried at all.

Hmmm..., Mr. Joe, have you thought of that?

>>>However, if I were to bring up my children here [in the USA], I would make
>>>sure that they are efficiently bilingual [in the Chinese-cu language].
>>>
>> 
>> In many Chinese-cu families, when the children--especially the eldest
>> child--object to conforming to the Chinese-cu way, like for example
>> learning the Chinese-cu language, the Chinese-cu parents often respond
>> that they will "make sure" that learning the Chinese-cu language will
>> take place.  "Make sure" translates to a gamut of negative reinforcement
>> ranging from verbal abuse to outright physical beatings.

You seem to assume a lot about me, don't you, Mr. Joe?  For your information,
when I was young, I hated learning the Chinese language.  In fact, in my school
in Singapore, it was a particular point of pride among students to be
exceptional in their English and atrocious in their Chinese (ACS for all you
Singaporeans out there.)  My parents were unhappy about it but they merely
shook their heads in despair and left it at that.  No beatings, no disownings,
nothing.  It was only in my later years that I realised that unless I could
speak the language, I couldn't make myself understood enough in a restaurant to
order my favourite plate of fried noodles, cooked exactly the way I liked it.
How's that for "positive" reinforcement without pain (hunger pangs excepted)?
Of course, there was also the army, where I learned a third dialect for obvious
reasons but that's another story.

>> I wonder how Mr. Tan will "make sure" that his daughter is bilingual
>> if she absolutely refuses to learn the Chinese-cu language.  I wonder....

Probably just left it at that and waited until she couldn't order HER favourite
plate of noodles in Chinatown and let her figure out what she's missing.  :-)

>   Probably kill her and hope for a baby boy the second time round.  But
>then again, why bother with such methods when artificial methods can give a 90%
>rate of getting the child with the sex you want, first time round.  [Mr Tan,
>this is said with a sarcastic tinge, and *ONLY* in reply to our Dwighty boy
>here.  Sorry if you feel insulted]

No problem, Tai.  I understood the sarcasm.

--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, 			  	| My words are my own: 
Fixed Income Analytics Group, 	  	| My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch,			  	| Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, 	| Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315.	  	|		- K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: kytan@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
	  75046.256@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american