Emailed too. Michael S. Morris wrote:
> 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 Equality Act 2006 itself, and thereby to get that law repealed?
No, I would claim that it's not clear to me that what
you posted about the ChristianInstitute is necessarily
a damning indictment of it. I went out of my way to
avoid agreeing or disagreeing, merely pointing out one
possible alternative interpretation.
> 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")...
Well, I think it's a fine thing for you to come up
with a creative set of peeves.
> 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.
Trust me, I do know how you think and feel about it.
> 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.
Not at all. To the same extent that someone dumping
a pickup truck of old sofa or household garbage at
the end of your driveway (but not blocking it) wouldn't
really affect you without your approval, Tindall's spew
is much the same. It's not on a stretch of sidewalk of
his own making, it's on the public sidewalk and it's
right in front of where I like to walk, more or less
daily. That I'm free to ignore it, and you'd be free
to live among heaps of someone else's refuse isn't the
issue--The issue is that it affects people. Theoretically
it need not, but it in fact does. It affects you, too.
Tindall's hell of his own making is something I wish he
didn't deserve (in more than one way). And conceivably
he doesn't. With his wife no longer sup****ting him
there's noone to steer him straight.
Anyway, and again, I said nothing of the sort. Tindall
certainly does have cyberdiahria. And it certainly is
nicer in an equivalent environment where his infastidious
net-bowel habits aren't in evidence than here, where they
are. You cannot dispute either of these without being
silly. Your jihad against him suggests he has more
im****tance than merely ignoring him. I don't mean to
suggest your feline-like recreational batting of his
mousy mentality is out of place, but it sometimes appears
to be more im****tant than merely fun for you, and that's
out of place. My apologies in advance to the extent
that I'm reading you wrong. ____________________Marty
>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.
|
