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 (C#) Walter O MUN 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