downingolsen said:
it is amazing to me that this Cop-killer still has a voice and is afforded the ability to brodcast his message. Danny Faulker had those rights taken from him over 20 years ago. I don't care if what ever Wesley Cook may say is so fuckin' briliant. He took the life of another, and so shall he forfit his.
george bush took the lives of up to 30,000 Iraqis and thousands of afghans, many of them completely innocent.
Bush has a much louder voice than Mumia.
Your statement was categorcal in support of a moral position that is flawed.
Stop equating the message with the messenger. It's incredibly dangerous.
It's also doublethink. How many of the intelligence operatives and sources for the intelligence forces around the world have shady pasts, yet they are relied upon fir important information all the time.
If a defector from Saddam's regime decided to come clean and tell us where the WMDs were hidden should we not listen to him? If Al Sadir the 'terrorist' decides to speak in favour of an American occupation, should he be silenced.
No, your postion is only to silence the messenger if the message is not to your liking, but if he/she says something that forwards your cause he/she is gladly listened to and put forward as a victory for your beliefs.
Of course if you are asked to accept someone's testimony it is prudent to judge his/her character as to whether or not his witness should be believed, but if he/she is putting forward sourced and reasoned arguements that can be easily verified, then it should be those arguements that ought to be considered. In this circumstance those who attack the messenger are betraying their inability to defeat the substance of the message
it's a true statement, and in relation to the arguement that because someone commits a crime he/she is no longer capable or worthy of being listened to is a stupid one because the nature of the message and the crime are both hugely subjective. the rule is self imposed, easily broken with no second thoughts, and then re-instated again whenever the situation allows.
Basically, people who say things you don't like are unworthy of attention, but you can be capable of supporting someone who says something you like regardless of how immoral or damaging his/her past might have been
would be somewhat interested ... but dont see what is so great about mumia vs. all the people convicted of non-violent drug possession crimes who are getting felony sentances ... a more common and disturbing phenomena ... ecq
Akrasia
Ireland
August 2004
OCT 11, 2004 03:43 AM