[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Apr 28 21:31:10 UTC 2009

Il 28/04/2009 18.30, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
> <painlord2k at libero.it>  wrote:

>> The problem is when the "findings" are used to disprove the right to the
>> existence of Israel, that is right to kick the Jews in the sea, the
>> existence of a world-wide Jews conspiracy aimed to dominate the world and
>> justify attacks of Jews everywhere as a way to "defend themselves".

> I agree, the problem being mainly a non-sequitur. When exactly did the
> fact of having suffered genocidal attentions at the hands of enemies
> become a requirement to establish a national entity?

It never was and never will be a requirement.
The requirement is the power and the will to prevent your enemies from 
using genocidal attention on you.

But having many enemies with genocidal attention is a good reason to for 
your national entity. In fact, I always wonder the reasons the 
Palestinians don't form their national entity as they cry "genocide" any 
day and two times at Friday.

> Possibly so, in terms of economic analysis of law. But this of course
> would suggest that restrictions to freedom of speech should be
> progressively... restricted, rather than expanded.

Only if the median and mean IQ grow.
It is a function of the IQ distribution inside the population and their 
sensitivity to speech.

Unfortunately, the current freedom of speech is restricted more for the 
most peaceful people than for the most violent one. They shut your mouth 
to prevent someone else from becoming angry and harming you. They put in 
prison the victim to protect the victim from the killers. And the 
killers go around free. Geert Wilders and Ayan Hirsi Ali come in mind as 
jail dweller with killers following them.

> What about not importing them in the first place? :-)

The problem is they are importing themselves without asking permission.
The main point is to convince them that coming is not a good option and 
that self-deportation home is a good option.
If Romanian criminal emigrated en-masses in Italy (so much the crime in 
Romania crashed) it is because they find the place hospitable and good 
for business.

> Yet, it appears to me that the US managed to survive with both a less
> "timid" population *and* with more a more libertarian stance on free
> speech, as opposed to more conformist and peaceful (or perhaps cynic)
> countries with a more stringent regulation thereof...

As I pointed out, the Second Amendment is there for a reason.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list