[lit-ideas] Re: The continuation of Realpolitik -- a counterfactual

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:28:41 -0230

Interesting. David W's conditional statement below also seems to ring true once
the antecedent and consequent are switched. 

"antecedent": the statement following the "if"
"consequent": the statement folowing the "then"

Could it be because one's own freedom and others' freedom are reciprocally
related (co-dependent)? Can't have one ... can't have one without the other

Walter O

Quoting David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx>:

> Actually, my intent is...
> If we choose to allow the restriction of others' freedoms based upon
> accordance with our own beliefs, or societal norms
> Then, we must be willing to submit the allowance/restriction our own
> freedoms to the beliefs of others, or societal norms
> clear as chocolate mousse,
> d.
> P.S.  It would certainly have been a bad argument...
>   Robert Paul wrote:
>   If I understand you at all?and it's very possible I don't?you seem
>   to be saying that if some people are 'restricted' in some way, some
>   of the time, it follows that all of the people may be 'restricted'
>   in any way at any time. This strikes me as simply a bad argument,
>   but as I say, I may have misunderstood you.
>   Robert Paul
> -- 
> See Exclusive Video: 10th Annual Young Hollywood Awards
> http://www.hollywoodlife.net/younghollywoodawards2008/

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: