From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Skinhead speech protected, Supreme Court says (was: Re: Fuck You
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.142709.10132@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.224518.23413@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>I see.  Because I would allow anybody to say whatever they wanted, I'm
>>in favor of control.
>
>You don't see, Seth.  You'd allow any right-thinking white guy

Ed, what is this fixation you have about "right-thinking white
guy[s]"?  I said (and you can see it right above, where you quote it)
"anybody"; that clearly includes non-whites and non-guys.  I also said
(ditto) "whatever"; that clearly includes non-right-thinking (whatever
that is) statements.

> and
>fellow traveler with the right-thinking white guy's program to say
>anything they wanted,

Why do you keep harping on specific groups and types of thought?  I
allow freedom of speech to everybody.  Period.

> and you use "free speech" as a privilege that
>empowers right-thinking white guys to abuse other groups.

It also empowers non-right-thinking non-white non-guys (and all other
6 sets in the Venn diagram) to abuse other groups.  Freedom of speech
applies to Everybody saying Anything; why do you keep claiming that I
have a purpose which I continually deny?

>  The only
>privilege you extend to outgroups is heavily conditioned on property
>ownership, and largely a form of self-incrimination.

It extends to outgroups exactly the same way it extends to ingroups.
Freedom of the press is available to the owner (or lessor) of a press;
the economic requirements are exactly the same for all.

>>>  For you admit your secret disregard for free
>>>speech.
>>
>>Where did you learn logic?  I'm in favor of everybody being allowed to
>>say whatever they want.
>
>No, you're not.

Yes I am.  I said so.

>  For to follow up statements that you don't like with a
>shitstorm of abuse

Now you're referring to my point-by-point refutations of your
statements as a "shitstorm of abuse".  Do you consider that to be
well-reasoned argument?

> MEANS that you are not in favor of that speech act,

Oh, I forgot that you're entitled to determine the meaning of what
other people say, and that your determination overrides theirs.

>that you would have preferred that that speech act never had taken
>place.

There are lots of acts that I feel people have a right to perform that
I'm in favor of them not performing.  For instance, I think a woman
has the right to turn down my request for a date, even though I prefer
that she not do so.

>  It is literally a lie for you to post "I'm in favor of
>everybody...".

No it isn't.  I'm in favor of your having the right to do something.
I'm not in favor of you doing it.  Why are you the only person I've
heard from who can't tell the difference?

>>  Someone telling me to shut up is exercising
>>his free speech.  Me telling him "No!" or just ignoring him and
>>continuing to talk is exercising mine.  Him hitting me over the head
>>to shut me up is using force.  Is there anyone here besides Ed who
>>can't see the difference?
>
>Is there anyone here besides Seth who does not see the utter crudity of
>what Seth considers to be speech, and dialogue?

Som speech is crude.  So what?  It's still speech.

>  Anne Wilson Schaef's
>excellent book on the societal results of addiction and codependency,
>When Society Becomes Addictive, writes that possibly 96% of all
>Americans are either directly addicted to a substance or process, or
>codependent on people directly addicted (and her inference has merit,
>for it is based on a mathematical trusim known as the "birthday"
>paradox.)

What is this relevant to?

>  Seth's model of dialog is not dialog, in reality; it's
>discourse as would be conducted within a disfunctional family.  Research
>is probably needed on the prevelance of disfunction in network flamage
>and the crude network model of what constitutes dialog.

My mode of dialog consists of people responding to each other.  If you
can't stand the flamage, get off the network (to coin a phrase).

>I don't want to reply to Seth anymore and I probably shall refrain in
>large measure from doing so,

Hurray!

> owing to the somewhat pathological nature
>of his replies.

Or owing to your inability to refute my logic without (i) redefining
common English words and (ii) claiming to read minds?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support