words/deeds

[tsung@aerospace.aero.org]

IED writes:
>The attribution of blame to the word instead
>of to the deed is a critical error in social thought.

I, for one, am not too clear on where the word ends and where the deed
begins.  Is a false bomb threat just words or a "deed"?  The physical
effects of non-physical acts are still real.

>>Demanding freedom means taking the burden of protection from the
>>society onto oneself; most of us are not ready for total freedom.

>This is exactly what IED disagrees with. Your pessimism about the ability
>of our species to think clearly is ...

I wouldn't call it pessimism.  If I was born physically weak, I have
all these wonderful laws to (try to) protect me from getting hurt.
If I turn out to be mentally weak (easy to be hurt), then what?
It's my own problem, right?  But why can't everybody all
take karate, become gun experts instead of having police around?

Personally, I don't believe in the phrase "you hurt me". Each person
is responsible for his being in a position to be hurt, mentally or
physically.  If something happens which you can't prevent, that's
life, the world is not fair.  Pick up the pieces and start over.
What I meant about "not ready for total freedom" is simply that most
of us never achieve competency/independence in all aspects of life;
we do rely on "policing/censorship" of one kind or another.

>If "physical" policing were effective, there
>would be no need for any kind of "mental" policing at all.

(would you give your baby just physical protection and not worry about
other aspects?)

If everyone were mentally healthy, there would be no need for
"physical" policing at all.  But as long as we are not all "perfect
beings", that we need to live in a society, there will be
policing/censorship.  The mistake of PMRC or the like is to see
policing/censorship as the solution rather than a symptom of
some underlying problem.

Fu-Sheng
p.s. no more on this subject from me on LH, I promise.