From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:27:52 MDT
Harvey writes
> Lee Corbin wrote,
> > > I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these
> > > people have ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
> >
> > Well, of course by "the enemy" you mean Saddam Hussein.
>
> Or the communists, the terrorists, al Quaeda, bin Ladin, the North
> Vietnamese, the 911 hijackers, and the Saudis. We have been accused of
> supporting all of these in the past week. All without evidence. It is
> pretty extensive, wide-spread, and really bizarre!
Of course. Thanks for the correction. But I also surmise that
by "our" enemy, one is identifying with Western civilization,
or with a specific collection of Western nations, or with the
U.S. Which is it?
> > But doesn't it all depend on how you conceive of what your
> > proper duties are as a citizen? Is it not also highly parameterized
> > by circumstances? I'm sure that you can think of many historical
> > situations (or simulations) in which sufficient danger would exist,
> > or in which sufficient fealty would be the norm, that it would be
> > true that "if you are not with us, then you are against us"?
>
> NO, NO, NO, NO!
Not very uncertain here, I see ;-)
> We cannot require people to express the government's official line
> or be accused of treason for merely failing to express an opinion.
I agree. The mechanism looks simple to me (not that I'm defending it),
and I am sure you understand it too: A attacks X. B attacks A. The
conjecture arises naturally that B supports X. You couldn't be more
correct when you point out that this is not a logical conclusion. But
as Eliezer was saying, it must weigh what one thinks (or suspects) is
going on.
In this case C, who conjectures that B supports X, should *ask*
"why shouldn't an attack on A in these circumstances be regarded
as support of X?" You did not respond to my "lip-service" remark.
I think that perhaps if B every so often paid lip-service by
denouncing X, the problems would be less severe. (Perhaps you
have done this sufficiently enough in your eyes.)
> This is so wrong, I can't imagine people buying into these loyalty
> oaths.
Well, this is the sort of leap from one subject (that I
thought I was talking about) to another that sometimes
contributes to misunderstanding. But as you write below,
I have missed a lot of this thread.
> Not expressing an opinion is not evidence of guilt. People cannot
> be accused of crimes for NOT doing anything. People are innocent until
> proven guilty. We cannot allow the government to change this to being
> guilty until proven innocent. A lack of evidence is not proof of guilt. (I
> never thought I would have to explain this on the Extropians list....)
Totally agree.
> > I readily understand that you cannot take insults lying down,
> > and that you need to defend what "anti-American" would mean to
> > you (not that you and others have neglected this). I myself
> > doubt the utility or the wisdom of such provocations---yet if
> > you could (and I don't know---perhaps you've tried) get those
> > people to explain more concretely what they mean when they use
> > such terms, perhaps the disagreements would be loftier.
>
> You haven't followed the debate. The terms are not unclear. People are
> being accused of specific terms with no evidence. There is no failure on my
> part to understand the slander being bandied about here.
Well, I still suspect that the terms *are* unclear. But it
doesn't matter: no accusation should be put forth without
a supporting argument. The length and detail of the supporting
argument should be proportional to the seriousness of the charge
(i.e., the estimated intensity of the denial it will provoke).
Sadly, such supportive arguments are too seldom seen---but today,
at any rate, things look better than they did before.
You will note that I did not mention any failure on your part.
I'm very worried that in the above paragraph---despite all my
qualifying words and phrases, it still accused you of some kind
of failure (my blind). If so, I guess I'd like to know what.
But if not, forget it.
> > What is going on is differing conceptions of what a country
> > or a nation should be, and the proper amount of allegiance
> > that is due. ;-) Your cries of "slander" are just as much an
> > overreaction as theirs of "war-criminal", or "traitor", though
> > perhaps they did start it.
>
> Wrong. When someone is accused of being supportive of communism,
> terrorism, or the enemy without any evidence, that is slander.
Well, I'm not going to argue about that definition. Evidently
you don't see much hope that a softer tone would be salutary.
Lee
> My complaints are not an overreaction. Accusations of crimes
> against the state with no evidence is a much larger overreaction
> than merely defending against those accusations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:37:31 MDT