From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:40:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
Message-ID: <199712030634.HAA11992@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



A ghost speaking through the medium of replay.com communicated:
>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.

This is a good thing to remember.  However, what you seem to be
calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree.

Is it possible to hold an immoral belief?  I don't think so.  Once
you've drawn a conclusion about the nature of the world you can hardly
decide that it would be immoral to understand the truth.  Actions, on
the other hand, can be immoral.  Let's not confuse beliefs with
actions.

What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should
refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world
because they are immoral.  You have seldom addressed Tim's statements
directly.  Orwell had a word for this: "crimestop".

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2]
94C43229A76383D818D39952F7A41ACA0394C6FE
9D7BB055B375A33548CB1E4F5F12CADFBD9F0C95
-812 812
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