| Are we to be "Orionites?"|
As an advocate of Barbara's suggestion of banning Orion, I would like to say that as much as I abhor censorship, I could not sanction suggestions of genocide. And since Orion had said that he was convinced that "all Muslims were that way," and therefore were worthy of a final solution, I have no problem of denying him a forum to speak such things. If he was ready to deny the rights of others for religious beliefs, then, by Objectivist standards, he surrenders his rights as well, troubled or not.
But since it's not my forum, it's not for me to decide. And I found the benevolence in Linz's reasoning, his appeal to Orion's better half, his willingness to reach out to a troubled person (Orion's posts on the introversion thread point to this as well) to be very heartfelt, and showed the spirit of SOLO at its best. (Is this a kinder, gentler, Lindsey Perigo? Personally, the Perigo above is the one I like.)
But Since Linz decided not to ban, does that make him an "Orionite?" My guess is "no."
My gut reaction to Lindsey's response was,
why is this guy so condemning of caterwaulers and Saddamites, who he dehumanizes as "vermin" or "maggots," but goes all soft and sensitive for someone who advocates genocide, and instead of calling him a "foaming anal crevice," (or "putrid excrement" as he calls Kerry) writes "I don't think Orion is bad; I think he's grossly over-wrought"?
(Kerry is putrid excrement, but Orion is merely troubled?
Hmmm....I would think that advocating genocide would be grounds for something Perigese...)
But after a careful rereading, Linz also writes:
"[In]the case of someone quite consciously, conscientiously evil... I think I'd be prepared to hear the person out & let a contest ensue ... to the point where it was clear that he'd lost. Then I'd boot his ass to the moon."
The words may change, but the sentiment is there. Olive branch and spear.Linz would not give SOLO to evil ideas. The option of banning someone is a tough choice, and he admits he does not have a perfect answer. Some may say this is a copout, but I believe the sincerity of the dilema.
I sympatize, since I don't like the idea of thoughtcrimes or censorship. But I have to ask, Linz, not as an attack, but as an honest question: What is the limit? You have no problem with passing moral judgement; we've seen that demonstrated clearly. But placed in a position to act on that judgement, are you ready to be the proverbial judge, jury and executioner?
I thought of the same scenarios others have suggested, such as advocating genocide of blacks or gays. I noticed a thread on Solo discussing the legalities of kiddie porn created "kid free" using instead digitally created images. What is someone started to advocate kiddie porn? We'll up the drama and ask, what if they advocate relations with kids? At what point would you draw the line? (Not only for the moral reasons, but for the legal reasons, since many here, myself included, would not want to be associated with such thoughts.) There could be dozens of examples, and I applaud your willingness to let reason prevail, but where is the line? Is there one?
In any case, I ask because I don't have the perfect answer, either.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/08, 10:42pm)