On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:50:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through their
noses or eyebrows.

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it? Have you
always wanted to swim upstream, or had some deep rooted desire to be
"different" just to **** other people off?



You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is
a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you
support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we
draw the line.

Define "anarchy".

You're a smart guy (I think), you look it up.


I believe that adults should think for themselves.

That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something
which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what?

What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights
all the time, remember?


I advocate nothing of the sort. But be careful Doug, by embracing
anarchy, your property rights go out the window.


It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with
respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority
people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the
majority. A curious duplicity if I must say.

Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is
another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the
people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything
to stop the behavior.

Stopping silly little expressions which have no potential to harm
another person, either physically or mentally, makes little sense, and
has no logical basis. But those activities which do adversely affect
other people, should be regulated for the greater good of the
community.


YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You
have an abnormal need to control other people.

I have no such need. You simply cannot comprehend the principles, so
therefore you project your thoughts onto me.

Funny thing, you seem to have no problem with restrictions on thing
like dogs, when it suits you.....

Dave