Saturday, the 12th of April, 2008
My Name quotes the UK Daily Mail:
[...]
The Christian Institute has now started legal proceedings
against Google on the grounds that it is infringing the
Equality Act 2006 by discriminating against Christian groups.
It is seeking damages, costs and the permission to publish its
advertisement.
I said:
This strikes me as a damning indictment of the Equality Act 2006.
Not to mention a damning indictment of the Christian Institute.
There is no excuse for *any* group, with any agenda, to try and force
someone else to aid or abet or accept its advertising agenda. This act
and this action are anti-liberty from the get-go, and it is a
crying shame that it is happening in the UK where liberty of
conscience
Rights were discovered in the first place.
Marty:
It's not clear to me that pu****ng an absurd concept
towards its extreme in an effort to abolish it is
*always* wrong. For a bit more on this, see the
"Reverse Morality?" thread over on www.meh-sc.org.
You would claim that the Christian Institute's agenda here
is not to, say, abolish abortion, or to, say, advertise
that political end, or to, say, force the business Google to
accept its adverts but rather to point the absurdity of the
Equality Act 2006 itself, and thereby to get that law repealed?
I guess if that is true, then it is like *my threat* that,
if we get to legislate laws banning speech or writing or films
or music or public displays "that offend people" or *because*
they offend, I can come up with a creative set of things which
offend me. Starting with the new football stadium under
construction in Indianapolis. That's the first to go. I've got
it on the list ("he's got it on the list")...
I don't know, Marty. It seems to me that it is simply morally
wrong for me to try and shut down somebody else's speech because
it offends me. Or to force them to speak what I want them to say.
And this strikes me as especially heinous if there is a policeman's
gun (the law) attached to the business end of that enforcement.
Marty:
There, Mark Tindall isn't welcome to indiscriminately
cyberpoop on everything, making it a much nicer place
than here (unfortunate but true).
Once again, this way overstates Mark Tindall's im****tance. Doggie
poop physically exists and messes up a public sidewalk unless it is
physically removed. Mark Tindall's postings are ****, yes, and he
hasn't written a single relevant or rationally coherent sentence
in years. Even his grammar flames merely exhibit that he is
more clueless than informed about grammar. And yet the point
remains that his "cyberpoop" exists only on a stretch of sidewalk
of his own making---a sidewalk that he creates simply by posting
there. Not on anybody else's stretch of sidewalk. In fact, anybone
is totally free to create as much unsoiled sidewalk
here as he likes and to walk here totally free of anything Mark
writes or has ever written. Not free to prevent Mark from commenting,
but free to ignore Mark's comments. Mark quite literally has
no relevance except insofar as someone chooses him to have
relevance, chooses to walk on that sidewalk over there and not
this one over here. And the mentally diseased nature of what he
chooses to post simply carries its own reward---he is locked
into a stupid and unimaginative and wholly predictable behaviour,
he is doomed to being forever unfunny (if he ever did write
something funny, it would fall flat because of the context he has
placed it in, even if someone happened to read it, which they
mostly wouldn't because of that selfsame context), he is
doomed by now that 95% or 99% of whatever he writes no one will
ever read, and he is doomed to sitting in his chair thinking the
whole time that he himself is some sort of victim, nursing his
grievance (whatever the heck it may be) like a toothache, even
though no one ever did a single thing to him but engage him
freely in speech.
Mike Morris
(msmorris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
|
