rtejeda said:
Those Dominicans, that are true believers in democracy insist on free debate and the unlimited exchange of ideas because they feel that no group, or individual, has, or should have, a monopoly on the truth, that no group, or individual, has the right to establish in the field of politics absolute standards of what is true and what is false. A man may be convinced that he is right, that truth in on his side, but in the midst of debate he appeals, not to the masses or philosopher and men of wisdom but to the power of his reason.
As Justice Holmes wrote: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."
The insistence of free speech for others stems from the recognition that men are not infallible, that perhaps the other person is right or, at least, that "I might be wrong."
Threatening, insulting, and inviting people to "El Seybo" so that they can find out what will happen to them, among others things, is wrong, undemocratic and disrespectful to individuals freedom of speech, something Rick-Pixx- Snyder is very good at doing.
Free speech is not simply the personal right of an individual to have his say; it is also the right of the rest of us to hear him.
Freedom of speech is not merely freedom to express ideas that differ slightly from ours; it is freedom to differ on things that go to the heart of matter. Some people, spy or not, democratic or not, profess to believe in democracy and freedom of speech, but they draw the line at ideas they consider abhorrent or dangerous. But what is a dangerous idea? Who decides?
In the realm of political ideas, who can find an objective, eternally valid standard of right? The search for truth is an endless one. It involves the possibility-even the inevitability- of error.
Rick-Pixx-Snyder, this means, not only free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate.
In short, Rick -Pixx-Snyder, stating that you which people, like Lumumba, be cast out out of DR1, or forbidden to submit they expressions of ideas on the ground that you don't like them and that they are subversive or dangerous is to set oneself up as an infallible judge of what speech should be permitted.
Rick-Pixx-Snyder, finally, like I said before, you don't impress me at all. and I would like to know,if you are a spy?
This post doesn't constitute that I agree or will support any subversive action against any government in planet earth. You got it?
rtejada:
While I whole-heartedly agree with your support of "the Freedom of Speech" I must disagree with some of the innuendo included within your post.
If that disagreement offends you, then take it like a man and attribute it to my "freedom of speech".
"The Truth", as each individual perceives it, is indeed a powerful weapon. It is when that weapon is used against the ignorant, the naive and is couched with utter falsehood, fallacious reasoning and half-stated innuendo, thatit becomes a dangerous weapon against society. Tho OP, which is the basis of this thread, is a prime example of the use of "freedom of speech" to hide behind a proposition which is, in the final analysis, a document promulgated to attract the dissaffected poor with a promise that cannot be fulfilled when inductive and deductive logic are applied.
It was very clear, from the onset, that the originator of the OP was "shotgunning" the medium of the Internet and more specifically, DR1, to publish his agenda. many of us saw this action as being subversive to the Government of the country in which we live and without credence. Is it not our prerrogative to address that in a negative manner? (sic) "Freedom of Speech"?
I will be the forst to admitthat the debate got a bit out of hand and that I probably contributed to some of that effect. Mea Culpa
You quote that learned jurist, Justice Holmes.
To carry it a bit further, the initial OP is far removed from the intent of Justice Holmes's statement in that the OP specifically embraced the "physical overthrow" of a soverign nation and its government. Can you justify "freedom of speech" with such a stated agenda? Sorry, but I cannot. In my estimation, "freedom of speech" does not embrace such activity. Every country has its laws against such activity and intent. Agreed??
The invitation to the originator of the OP was issued, not as a threat, but in essentual refutation of the OP itself by the local population in El Seybo. That was not a threat, but simply an indication of the reception the originator would receive by the citizens of El Seybo. The questions implicit in the invitation were esentially, would the OP be accepted by the citizens or would they physiclly abuse the person initiating the OP. That was my interpretation of Rick's invitation; not the one you gave.
Your entire argument is based on your premise that you are the guardian of "freedom of speech", which was very arrogantly presented. Your use of the "Pet" name you have given to Mr Snyder is indicative of your contempt and arrogance for those with whom you disagree. your accusation, in the absence of visable proof, that Mr Snyder is a 'spy" is further evidence of you displeasure in not being accepted as, in your imagination, the guardian of the "freedom of speech".
It is not my intention to castigate you, nor to disparage you; only your post, which comes across as I have stated, but to remind you that when judging the actions of others, one must also be aware of that which is in mitigation of the offence charged.
This post is not emanating from an arrogant personality, but from one who views your presentation as being a litle "beyond the pale"and in bad taste in some areas. Not all, but some.
Now, please get over your "mad", sit back and review your post, then issue an apology to Mr Snyder for the manner in which you have denegrated him. You were wrong and know it. Be man enough to admit that you went a bit too far.
Texas Bill
