tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574312933046809975.post1133277158329114589..comments2019-04-02T22:18:56.542-05:00Comments on A Rational Egoist Contemplates...: Mahmoud I'm-a-nutjob in NYCA Rational Egoisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00484543561850173046noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574312933046809975.post-46042872227281417032007-09-25T22:09:00.000-05:002007-09-25T22:09:00.000-05:00Steve! Food (thoughts) for thought.“The right of f...Steve! Food (thoughts) for thought.<BR/><BR/>“The right of free speech does not entail the obligation to provide a platform and microphone to anyone who wants to speak his mind.”<BR/><BR/>You choose to use the word obligation, which supports your cause. And I agree – no, it does not. But you avoid saying that it entails the <EM>option</EM>, the more appropriate word (based on definition and law), which it does.<BR/><BR/>You continue:<BR/><BR/>In other words, there are ethical standards upon which to exercise the right of free speech properly.<BR/><BR/>This statement is one of pure judgment (whether good or bad). And one must consider that “ethical standards” most often are nothing more than individual beliefs at root – though, dangerously, they also are often the product of collective thought. <BR/><BR/>The desire to censor speech, no matter how offensive, is a delicate topic, because one must consider those situations in which he or she would feel outrage at an idea being censored. <BR/><BR/>I believe that even if one is right to fear the implications of allowing any person or party to promote opinions – especially because this act has frequently resulted in dangerous outcomes, and the majority of the human population exercises poor judgment consistently (this is a personal assumption and in theory could discredit my argument) – you must above all value the right to act, to argue, and to have the <EM>option</EM> of sharing your thoughts and acting on your ideas, no matter how twisted (or brilliant) they are.<BR/><BR/>That said, I also would declare that if I were in the position of Bollinger, I too would desire to have Adolf Hitler speak at my institution (for the sake of argument). I can think of no better way to develop and support my thoughts on an issue than to hear what the individual who most opposes me has to say. This creates an informed, if not level, playing field – and, if rationality proves victorious in the larger picture, it would be the one who works hardest, understands most his/her cause and ultimately is right (again, a discrediting statement), that would lead their cause/belief to gain acceptance. This struggle is what accelerates greatness, rationality and discourse, as well as suffering and tragedy. C’est la vie. <BR/><BR/>So, I say: Let them give indirect sanctions – at least people are thinking for a change. That which invokes anger is more valuable than that which invokes praise, in my humble opinion. But I’m weird like that.<BR/><BR/>And as a final note:<BR/>“Recognizing the right of free speech entails that the government not forbid private individuals from speaking their mind when other individuals voluntarily agree to hear what is being said.”<BR/><BR/>This is a <EM>very</EM> unstable statement. Firstly, in the case at hand, individuals DO voluntarily agree to hear what is being said; no one is being held at gunpoint, forced to hear Ahmadinejad’s speech. And recognizing free speech <EM>does</EM> mean that one must be subjected to opinions that they do not agree with. It is viewing this as detrimental rather than beneficial that is dangerous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574312933046809975.post-72823253477796900652007-09-24T20:42:00.000-05:002007-09-24T20:42:00.000-05:00For one thing, I heard the opening remarks of the ...For one thing, I heard the opening remarks of the president of Columbia and he pretty much told Ahmadinejad that he was full of crap.<BR/><BR/>I couldn't disagree with your premise more. Give this guy enough rope to hang himself. I explained it more thoroughly in my blog.<BR/><BR/>http://mofyc.blogspot.com/2007/09/contrived-hysteria-about-ahmadinejads.htmlBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08797243971179303040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574312933046809975.post-23259290455248701082007-09-24T17:49:00.000-05:002007-09-24T17:49:00.000-05:00Lee Bollinger was quite strong in his opening rema...Lee Bollinger was quite strong in his opening remarks, so it looked like a good show. I look forward to seeing a longer transcript.<BR/>I will say it again- If we could talk to the Soviets and the Chinese formally and imformally, with an enemy that actually had the capability to destroy us, there is no bloody reason why we must refuse all contact with the Iranians. That won't get us anywhere. And there is not a single person in the world who think that Columbia is sanctioning his speech, so let not your heart be troubled.<BR/>One of the few things less productive than advocating the total isolation of Iran is advocating the imprisonment of a sitting head of state whilst traveling to an international conference on what is essentially non-US soil. If we were to do that, we'd be no better than the Iranian students of 1979.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com