Re: denial of service and government rights
At 05:24 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?
This is idiotic. I suspect it's deliberately idiotic, but I can't see what anyone gains by it. If you've got a point to make, would you please just say what you're thinking and move on? There's a big difference between something being punishable and someone being punished. The false testimony was given on behalf of a friendly government, and in favor of a cause which met with widespread national support and was the focus of much (literal) flag-waving and patriotic speechifying. In general, you face very few risks if you lie in a way which helps a very popular cause, and the people you're lying to want to do the thing that your lies are purportedly justifying. Your risks are much greater if you're saying something unpopular or if you are an unpopular person. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about politics. And the fact that laws are sometimes enforced in a political matter shouldn't be news to anyone. (I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's attributable to and a result of to the general fallibility of human beings, myself included, so I'm skeptical about easy answers. Real-world solutions tend to fall short of theoretical perfection. Doh.)
If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as correct. Things are bad indeed.
I'd sure appreciate it if you'd just say what you're thinking (if it's on-topic) instead of playing stupid "Is X true? Is Y true? Wow! I've just discovered something new!" games. Your comments suggest to me that what you're dancing around is, essentially, that the government is morally wrong because it (eliding distinctions between governments and branches of governments) enforces laws in an erratic or discriminatory or political fashion. That's what I'm extracting from your messages. If there's something more to what you're saying, I think I'd have a better chance of extracting it if you devoted less energy to tricky rhetorical strategies. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |
Greg Broiles wrote:
At 05:24 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?
This is idiotic. I suspect it's deliberately idiotic, but I can't see what anyone gains by it. If you've got a point to make, would you please just say what you're thinking and move on?
See below.
There's a big difference between something being punishable and someone being punished. The false testimony was given on behalf of a friendly government, and in favor of a cause which met with widespread national support and was the focus of much (literal) flag-waving and patriotic speechifying. In general, you face very few risks if you lie in a way which helps a very popular cause, and the people you're lying to want to do the thing that your lies are purportedly justifying. Your risks are much greater if you're saying something unpopular or if you are an unpopular person. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about politics. And the fact that laws are sometimes enforced in a political matter shouldn't be news to anyone. (I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's attributable to and a result of to the general fallibility of human beings, myself included, so I'm skeptical about easy answers. Real-world solutions tend to fall short of theoretical perfection. Doh.)
If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as correct. Things are bad indeed.
I'd sure appreciate it if you'd just say what you're thinking (if it's on-topic) instead of playing stupid "Is X true? Is Y true? Wow! I've just discovered something new!" games. Your comments suggest to me that what you're dancing around is, essentially, that the government is morally wrong because it (eliding distinctions between governments and branches of governments) enforces laws in an erratic or discriminatory or political fashion. That's what I'm extracting from your messages. If there's something more to what you're saying, I think I'd have a better chance of extracting it if you devoted less energy to tricky rhetorical strategies.
I sympathize. My original posting was short and clear. This is what happens when people who don't think as clearly as you do (sadly, a majority of c-punks) respond to a posting with deliberately twisted logic to "refute" a point. See Black Unicorn's recent posts about denial of service for an excellent example of this.
participants (2)
-
Dale Thorn -
Greg Broiles