>>> <JKSCHW at aol.com> 03/23/00 03:25PM >>>
> As I pointed out when someone said something like this in response to my
article on this subject, thought is not detectable.
Not so. Thought is uncommon, but when it occurs, it is detectable. And not just from words, but from behavior from which can be inferred.
CB: But without the words or the behavior, it is not detectable. Put it this way. It is possible , often, to think, and not have it be detected by anyone else unless one also talks or makes some other overt behavior.
But my point is sort of a side joke. If it were possible to detect directly a "pure' fascistic racist thought, I would not be adverse to trying to discourage that fascistic racist thought. Thought is not sacred because it is thought.
So, if we agree that fascist racist words cause bad behavior, why draw the line there? Fascist racist thoughts also cause it, and are detectable, as my example from employment discrimination law suggests.
CB: It is really just a practical problem. If it were possible to detect a pure fascistic racist thought directly , I would not be adverse to trying to discourage it. But I don't think it is very easy to detect a thought that is not linked to speech or some other kind of behavior, symbolling. We know thoughts by their fruits mainly.
> However, the idea IS to
eventually get no one to think as a fascistic racist.
If we actually could make it so that no one ever thought a racist or male
supremacist thought again, it would be one of the most freedom loving,
democratic, liberational, wonderful achievements in the history of humanity.
Wonderful, maybe. I am not so sure about freedom loving.
CB: I'm sure. FREEDOMLOVING. The opposition to fascistic racism is more freedom loving than the opposition to discouraging people to think fascistic racist thoughts.
Justin: Charles actually doesn't care a great deal about freedom. If there were a pill that reliably excised all facist racist thoughts, I bet Charles would want to require us to take it. He doesn't care how we get our brains washed,a s long as we do.
CB: I care more about freedom than you do. That's what this debate is about: freedom. I got a better definition than you, and I care about it more than you.
It sort of parallels U.S. history. The American revolutionaries thought they were the experts on freedom, and their version was reflected in the Constitution with freedom of speech and thought in the very FIRST Amendment. But lo and behold they overlooked that they had slavery. Turned out the struggle from slavery and racism was more important than than the First Amendment freedoms. The main struggle for freedom, freedom, freedom, was the struggle of the slaves for FREEEEEDOM. The slaves were more expert on freedom than the slaveowning free thinkers.
This is getting a bit philosophy-hypothetical with the science fiction pill. I am the one here who is insisting that pure thoughts are not readily detectable. And I certainly am not talking about such a pill. I am focussed on the speech and behavior. But you take the liberty of speculating on what I would do to get at the pure thoughts which you , not I, say are detectable. Leave me out of your hypothetical.
Also, with your non-existent pill, you go on to attribute to me absolute indifference to its effects as long as it "eradicates" racism ( a totally fictional scenario) This borders on using your hypothetical to implicitly portray me as obsessed and solely concerned with fascistic racism without any regard for other issues. This is the setup for your misrepresentation of me below, that I would do it at any price. Slander. In this thread, I am only relating speech and fascistic racism. As I say, you don't have an understanding of what I am saying enough to extrapolate to what I think about a hypothetical , science fiction pill. I certainly would not be indifferent to other effects of such a wild pill, as you imply.
> It would be more important than the passage of the First Amendment.
As I was saying about Charles and freeom.
CB: This thought of yours is not detectable even by your speech.
> It would
be absolutely fabulous if a racist or sexist thought never crossed anyone's
I agree. But not at any price.
CB: But yes, at the price of denying fascistic racists "freedom" of speech. "Any" price is your misrepresentation of what I am saying, drifting off on your pill hypothetical.
Lets turn it around. JUSTIN WOULD PROTECT ANY THOUGHT AT ANY PRICE, even the price of chancing another Nazi organization getting started.
> Justin's statement here really is a case of philosophical idealism. Thought
is sacred for idealists. Being is of secondary concern to them.
How could I have overlooked that? A fatal objection. Give me the pill, please.
CB: Did you overlook it ? I thought you knew you were an idealist.
It's your pill. That pill is in your thoughts. I ain't in the pill thing. Do you have fascistic racist thoughts you are trying to get rid of ? Why not just think about that pill you thought of.