By "banning mockery" I do not mean outlawing it, but overreacting to
it and denying its suitability as a debating technique. I believe that
sometimes mockery can be a good way to point to the fact that others
carry an idea, even a valid one, too far. The original post by Mark,
as a read it, is a joke pointing to the fact that some worship the
free market as a deity rather than seeing it as a good tool, a very
good one, that can still be improved by analysis and practice. The
reply by E. Shaun, and yours, sound like you feel offended by the fact
that blasphemous non-believers dare mocking the Free Market God. So
you "fall in the trap" and give even more force to the first argument
(the joke). I think the free market deserves a better defence. Please
correct me if I misinterpreted any of the posts I refer to.
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 02:14:56 -0800, "Michael M. Butler"
>> I have not seen a better alternative to free markets either, but I
>> feel that banning mockery comes a bit too close to "religious" worship
>> of ideas that should be analysed only in terms of their practical
>I'm not sure I follow the above reasoning. The only one discussing "banning" mockery is you.
>Calling mockery tired, or tiresome, or banal, or anything else, and asking that someone do something more constructive,
>doesn't constitute "banning" as far as I can see.
You are right, and I apologize to E. Shaun. I will follow your advice.
>The rest of your comments were inappropriately tagged as being E. Shaun's, though his were at the bottom and
>double-">>"'d. Please consider more careful proofreading of your posts.
Now I am a bit lost since I am unable to identify the sarcasm you are
referring to. Perhaps you could point it to me.
>OK, and this hope for more F is helped precisely _how_ by sarcasm? Is sarcasm "analysis"?
--- G.P. firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:30 MDT