From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 17:01:47 BST
Hello Wim,
I would have to say that I agree with you here.
Explanation following:
When discussing politics on a professional basis (politicians) a very
dominant goal, is to maintain objectivity, in the service of your
constituants, as you being the chosen representative by the process of
election. However, as we know ourselves, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remain
objective, unless you want completely sterile discourse.
This is where I agree with you. Right now, objectivity is something that
politicians are supposed to keep in the forefront of their thoughts. What
they say, has to be screened thoroughly before they can even think of saying
it. This is known as being "Politically Correct".
An example of someone NOT doing this, would be in the previous months, a
person who worked as a public representative of the Canadian government,
called G.W.B, a...Bastard(I think that was it).
Now, after this, the person was pretty much forced to resign. Why though?
When you really think about it, WHY??? Now, I understand the motives behind
keeping discussion "civil", however, when it comes to a point where it
infringes on free speech (which IS the/a cherished American liberty, or so
they say), it is WRONG to force someone to resign . They have every RIGHT
to do this. Doesn't matter if they call me, or the president/prime minister
a Jack Ass. If you are not confident enough in yourself and your abilities
to be hurt by this, than you really don't belong in a position of power
where millions of people depend on your decisions.
This is one reason why I laugh at the notion of Free Speech, because, in the
public limelight, it truly does not exist. If someone says something deemed
innapropriate, for whatever reason (I'm not talking about the extremes,
I.E.the isms), because it is what they feel, they should not be lambasted
for saying it. If what they say is really that bad or stupid, then you
would just view them as stupid for saying what they did, and lower your
opinion of them.
It is when people try and alter their true words to those that will not
"hurt peoples feelings", that creates the current political falseness. I'm
not saying that you could go up to someone and say "Your a dick!" because
you feel like it. Even if someone did say something like this, then you
should just disregard it as pure stupidity.
This failure of free speech, is a deliberate effort to keep religion and
philosophy out of political discussion, which, in nature, is a complete and
total hypocracy. How can you NOT involve philosophy and religion??? It
only hinders progress when you try and hide behind the facade of
objectivity.
If you do involve philosophy and/or religion in politcal discourse, with the
objective of coming to a CONSENSUS, then it only voices peoples true
opinions and beliefs.
Politicians would cease to be decievers.
What do >>YOU<< think?
Sincerely,
Poot
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 29 2004 - 17:04:00 BST