At 09:34 AM 7/22/2007, you wrote:
> > At 06:58 AM 7/22/2007, you wrote:
> > >Quoting MarshaV <marshalz@char...>:
> > >
> > > > At 05:29 PM 7/21/2007, Platt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >No. The citizens of communist China have limited freedom compared to
> > > > >citizens of the U.K.
> > > >
> > > > Platt,
> > > >
> > > > How do you know this? Are you a citizen of communist China? Have you
> > > > even been to China?
> > >
> > >Hi Marsha,
> > >
> > >No, I am not a citizen of communist China and I have never been there. But
> > >I have read about citizens of China being arrested for criticizing their
> > >government. They do not enjoy the protections of free speech that citizens
> > >of the U.S. and U.K enjoy. Do you have reason to doubt this?
> > Platt,
> > How do you know this?
>See for example:
>Do you doubt this?
I was not there, so I don't know what to think.
> > Have you spoken to many Chinese
> > citizens? Have you read any books about China?
>No and no.
Where exactly is your information coming from?
> Are you talking
> > about China today, or China 10 years ago?
>China in the last 10 years up to today.
> > May U.S. citizen say
> > ANYTHING they please?
>Without being prosecuted and thrown in jail? Yes. On college campuses,
>no. On TV and radio, no. In print, yes.
Have you limited your definition of 'freedom of speech' to print?
> > Are there no restraints?
>Yes, but not for criticizing the government.
Have you limited your definition of 'freedom of speech' to
criticizing the government in print?
> > May a young boy hold up a
> > sign stating BONG HITS 4 JESUS? Free speech???
>Children are restrained more than adults, for obvious reasons.
In this case it is not obvious to me. There is nothing in the sign
that I find as harming another.
> > If you were a
> > Arab-American could you say ANYTHING?
>What do you have in mind?
> > Your opinions are too general to be
> > meaningful.
See above where you seem to be narrowing your definition.
> If you want to peacefully protest a WTO meeting, can you be
> > sure the police won't shoot tear-gas at you?
>What's a WTO?
> > May there be static filters that distort YOUR evaluation, since your
> > understanding doesn't seem to be based on actual experience?
>Sure, everyone has static filters. Don't you? I understand a lot about the
>Revolutionary War even though I didn't actually experience it. Are you
>suggesting understanding can only come from actual experience?
Direct experience is less likely to be contaminated. Static filters
may be correct or incorrect.
> > Where have your opinions come from?
>Like yours, a variety of sources, too numerous to mention.
I don't mistake my opinion with fact. There's also been plenty of
data to show even direct experience is subject to error.
>Originally you wrote of 'freedom',
> > not 'freedom of speech'.
>Right. But the original subject was "Limits of freedom." That would include
>speech wouldn't it?
> > > > What is your definition of freedom?
> > >
> > >Restraint from power of another.
> > Who has such restraints from power of another?
>The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees restraints from government power. Then
>their a numerous laws restraining power of another, like laws against rape
This reply is stinky. The Bill of Rights is an unactualized
ideal. The government creates laws to enforce its power. Who has
restraint from power of another???????????????? Does such a human
> >The definition of
> > freedom is as Gav wrote, 'to be in the present is to be free of the
> > ego'. Freedom is the dynamic now, not socialized static
> > opinion. ARE YOU FREE?
>Talk about generalities. :-) But, it seems you and Gav have some static
>opinions, too. But, I could be wrong.
Dynamic quality is freedom, all else is a combination of freedom and
order. Would you agree? If yes, then your definition of freedom is
merely an ideal.