>> Tolerance is an obligation of listeners, not speakers.
>> A speaker's only obligation is honesty.
> This baffles me. What is this about obligation? How odd. No one
> is obligated to do either!!! It is courtesy either way.
I am using "obligation" here in the moral sense: my personal
moral beliefs value tolerant listeners and straightforward
speakers. I believe I have a moral obligation to be honest
except in self-defense just as I have a moral obligation not
to kill except in self-defense, and a moral obligation not to
restrain in any way others' expression of ideas.
It is a myth that it is always possible to be completely
honest, clear, and courteous. Most of the time it is, but
when it's not, courtesy should be the first to go. Clarity
also conflicts sometimes, and that's a harder one for me to
judge: I'm not sure yet whether to value carity or honesty
more in those rare situations where, for example, you think
a simplification of your ideas will be better received than
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:24 MDT