For the first post on this blog, we'll go short and sweet. Mikeb, in defending the remarkable claim (I never said it would be a polite remark) that "guns won't stop rape on campus," Mikeb actually came out and said . . . well, let's just see it--no paraphrase can do it "justice":
Mikeb: The rights of the individual are sacrificed for the greater good and safety of the college.
I obviously couldn't let that abominable mentality go unchallenged, so I left this comment in reply:
Me: Wow--we must sacrifice individual rights for "the greater good and safety." At least you can't be accused of trying to hide your depraved, collectivist, hive insect mentality.
That was two days ago, and it still hasn't showed up, leaving me to conclude that he has no intention of it ever seeing the light of day. Well, now it will.
Actually, that's not the only comment in that discussion that frightens Mikeb into censorship. He also said this:
Mikeb: That's pretty weak, Kurt. You want to do away with laws because of the exceptional cases, however rare they are?
It gets down to the fact that guns do more harm than good. We can't allow the "more harm" for the occasional good.
He apparently didn't like my reply to that, either:
You want to do away with laws because of the exceptional cases, however rare they are?Me: Yeah, and I've explained why (well, I've pointed to Jeff Snyder's explanation, which is vastly more eloquent than anything I'll ever write).
But actually, that's only part of it. The rest is perhaps most easily summed up with shall not be infringed.
It gets down to the fact that guns do more harm than good.Me: Says the guy who claims not to blame the guns. Oh--that's right--that's just "metonymy." So, what are you literally saying now, Mikeb?
Why must that be silenced, Mikeb?
No comments:
Post a Comment