Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?

There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among
members whose positions are otherwise indefensible.  It's surprising in
a way because this fallacy is more common among statists.

There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be
illegal.  We see this all the time.  People think of the government as
their way of expressing moral values.  Drugs are wrong, so they must be
made illegal.  Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it also must
be illegal.  We have countless bad laws based on this false premise.

On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it
must be moral.  Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful,
immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of
freedom of speech and the First Amendment.  Their critic must be opposed
to free speech if he objects to their words.

Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game.  It leads
to the false reasoning of the statists.  We must remember that there is
a clear distinction between morality and legality.

We all agree with freedom of speech.  People should be able to say
whatever they like without fear of legal consequences.  Cypherpunk
technologies can play a major part in assuring this freedom.

But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid.  If someone
calls for murder and they are attacked for it, it does no good for them to
hide behind the First Amendment.  Their words are wrong - they will have
harmful consequences if followed.  They cheapen life, and work against
the goals we share of a future based on cooperation rather than cooercion.
Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt
to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and
murder.

It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse
the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of
speech.  They know that if they are judged by their own words, their
character is revealed for all to see.  Any smokescreen is welcome if it
helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature.

Why is it that people on a moral high-horse always seem to think that
that those are 'pearls of wisdom' dropping from their horse's hind-end?

Anonymous, dripping cum from the edges of a happy mouth, slurred:
> There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among
> members whose positions are otherwise indefensible.

  Sounds like shit-for-brains is about to launch another character
assault in the name of truth, righteousness and good dental hygene.

> On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it
> must be moral.  Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful,
> immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of
> freedom of speech and the First Amendment.  Their critic must be opposed
> to free speech if he objects to their words.

  As opposed to your own vicious, hateful, 'moral' rants against 
vicious, hateful, 'immoral' rants?

> Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game.  It leads
> to the false reasoning of the statists.  We must remember that there is
> a clear distinction between morality and legality.

  Are you a kindergarten teacher? Do you have a chart where you are
placing different colored stars beside the list members names?
 
> We all agree with freedom of speech. 

  No we don't. Shut the fuck up!

> But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid.

  Did you take a statement that had meaning and edit it to come
up with this one?
  Time flies like an arrow--fruit flies like a banana.
  OK, _your_ turn again...

> Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt
> to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and
> murder.

  CypherPunks are intelligent enough to realize that calls for violence
and murder, like the acts themselves, do not need justification.
  Didn't your parents teach you that the justification for everything
is, "Because I said so!"?

> It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse
> the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of
> speech.  

  You seem to have a desperate need to explain to the rest of the list
readers exactly what it is they are reading and what it means. You must
be a lot of fun to go to a movie with.

>They know that if they are judged by their own words, their
> character is revealed for all to see.  Any smokescreen is welcome if it
> helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature.

  Give it a fucking break...
  If you are going to piss on someone on this list, please make an
effort to do a decent job of it. Lame, smarmy character assassinations
such as yours only serve to accentuate your envy of others for their
ability to exercise their vicious, hateful nature more potently than
yourself.

  Go give your morality speeches to your kindergarten class while you
play with their little bums.

TruthMonger