Re: Free & Open Society & toleration

[Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>]

Jim Choate wrote:
> It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should
> not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a
> free and open society must tolerate any action.
> 
> This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY
> ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no
> means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy.
> It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open
> society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting
> individualy or in concert.

  I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is 
short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just
couldn't leave it alone, could you?
  I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful
statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of
'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification
of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or 
imagined 'slight'.

  I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes 
dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are
passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think
that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let
logic lead your emotions.
  If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me
in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' 
sense of determination in pursing any position you take.
  The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your
search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your
inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and
defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and 
opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant
and enlightening.
  I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your 
beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of
logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them 
with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of
sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny.
  You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid
consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your
excessive arguments regarding them.

Toto