20 Dec
2005
20 Dec
'05
1:34 p.m.
Here again, I
see "it's his right to do that" being used as if it
implied "it's not a bad thing for him to do that". As I explained
in another message, I do not agree with that leap.
But you *do* seem to concur
with 'it's a bad thing for him to do that
== it's *not* his right to do that' -- or you would have let him.
Oh, I let him. I'm in no position to prevent him, after all.
But you seem to think that just because I censured him for it, that I
think he doesn't have a right to do it (because you leapt from the one
to the other). This too is wrong. I fully agree that he was/is within
his rights to do as he did. That doesn't mean that I think what he did
was good, or even was not deserving censure.
So, as Roger said, why should you put a moral bent on
a personal
choice? Because that's exactly what you're doing.
See my reply to Roger. Most briefly, because I believe such choices
hold back the state of the art, and thus harm society as a whole - at
which point it becomes a moral issue.
To me.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B