Re: denial of service and government rights

At 05:24 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
>So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on
>essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and
>which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with
>it.  You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?

This is idiotic. I suspect it's deliberately idiotic, but I can't see what
anyone gains by it. If you've got a point to make, would you please just
say what you're thinking and move on? 

There's a big difference between something being punishable and someone
being punished. The false testimony was given on behalf of a friendly
government, and in favor of a cause which met with widespread national
support and was the focus of much (literal) flag-waving and patriotic
speechifying. In general, you face very few risks if you lie in a way which
helps a very popular cause, and the people you're lying to want to do the
thing that your lies are purportedly justifying. Your risks are much
greater if you're saying something unpopular or if you are an unpopular
person. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about politics. And the fact
that laws are sometimes enforced in a political matter shouldn't be news to
anyone. (I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's attributable to and a
result of to the general fallibility of human beings, myself included, so
I'm skeptical about easy answers. Real-world solutions tend to fall short
of theoretical perfection. Doh.) 

>If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse
>than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as
>correct.  Things are bad indeed.

I'd sure appreciate it if you'd just say what you're thinking (if it's
on-topic) instead of playing stupid "Is X true? Is Y true? Wow! I've just
discovered something new!" games. Your comments suggest to me that what
you're dancing around is, essentially, that the government is morally wrong
because it (eliding distinctions between governments and branches of
governments) enforces laws in an erratic or discriminatory or political
fashion. That's what I'm extracting from your messages. If there's
something more to what you're saying, I think I'd have a better chance of
extracting it if you devoted less energy to tricky rhetorical strategies. 


--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 05:24 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on
> >essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and
> >which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with
> >it.  You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?

> This is idiotic. I suspect it's deliberately idiotic, but I can't see what
> anyone gains by it. If you've got a point to make, would you please just
> say what you're thinking and move on?

See below.

> There's a big difference between something being punishable and someone
> being punished. The false testimony was given on behalf of a friendly
> government, and in favor of a cause which met with widespread national
> support and was the focus of much (literal) flag-waving and patriotic
> speechifying. In general, you face very few risks if you lie in a way which
> helps a very popular cause, and the people you're lying to want to do the
> thing that your lies are purportedly justifying. Your risks are much
> greater if you're saying something unpopular or if you are an unpopular
> person. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about politics. And the fact
> that laws are sometimes enforced in a political matter shouldn't be news to
> anyone. (I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's attributable to and a
> result of to the general fallibility of human beings, myself included, so
> I'm skeptical about easy answers. Real-world solutions tend to fall short
> of theoretical perfection. Doh.)

> >If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse
> >than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as
> >correct.  Things are bad indeed.

> I'd sure appreciate it if you'd just say what you're thinking (if it's
> on-topic) instead of playing stupid "Is X true? Is Y true? Wow! I've just
> discovered something new!" games. Your comments suggest to me that what
> you're dancing around is, essentially, that the government is morally wrong
> because it (eliding distinctions between governments and branches of
> governments) enforces laws in an erratic or discriminatory or political
> fashion. That's what I'm extracting from your messages. If there's
> something more to what you're saying, I think I'd have a better chance of
> extracting it if you devoted less energy to tricky rhetorical strategies.

I sympathize.  My original posting was short and clear.  This is what
happens when people who don't think as clearly as you do (sadly, a
majority of c-punks) respond to a posting with deliberately twisted
logic to "refute" a point.  See Black Unicorn's recent posts about
denial of service for an excellent example of this.