Chambers wrote:
> After all, we remember Socrates precisely because he offended the
> majority of his contemporaries (even calling himself society's gadfly,
> annoying them with his criticisms until they changed).  Outspoken
> "offenders" of history have always been an integral part of societal
> change, from the Women's Suffrage movement, to the equal rights
> campaigns in the 60s, to the fall of Communism in the 80s, and still
> continue today.  And those are only in the last hundred years. going
> back further, every major change in thinking has been preceded by
> outspoken individuals who offended those around them.

	That's not a good argument. Or at least, it's an incomplete argument.

	If you want to invoke this, you have to provide a sense of all those
people who did likewise and had a negative effect on society, which I
suspect occurred much more frequently than the people you speak of.

	It may well be that the better scenario is to have some level of
censorship. You'll need offenders to obtain "progress", but history has
shown that you'll get those kinds of "good" offenders regardless of
censorship.<G> The plus is that most of the negatives are avoided.

	(I'm not arguing either way - just pointing out that your paragraph was
not convincing).

-- 
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message