Saturday, March 08, 2003

Bobby: Thanks for the info. I did have the two confused. The net effect of this is still that a particular political group faces felony charges for engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. In my original blog I expressed a general impression that democrats, who have long used civil disobedience as a tool to address their political concerns, were largely unconcerned and mostly supportive of this law. I question the constitutionality based on the principal of "fair and equal treatment" under the law. And I don't consider the ACLU to be anything; they defend everyone's civil rights regardless of political belief.

Bill: You are right. A woman seeking an abortion does, by law, have a right to be unimpeded. However, your attempt to link bombings and shootings to my writing is still despicable. Everthing I have written clearly concerned non-violent civil disobedience.

Elizabeth: Since you were offering up Brook's TBI story as evidence of "protest quashing" (it clearly is not) I did assume that perhaps you did not fully understand the meaning and weight of the word. If you did understand, then why did you cite as evidence something that doesn't even vaquely resemble the definition?

As to your requirement that it is incumbent upon me to prove that a legally gathered protest group has not been quashed I must again assume (sorry) that you don't fully grasp certain logical concepts. It is impossible to prove a negative. No one can prove that something didn't happen. This has been a fundamental principle of logic since the Greeks first started thinking about thinking. An assertion has been made, using unambiguous terms, and I have asked for the evidence that supports it. To date it has not been provided.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home