3 ms·

Im very sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

• bandushrew 16y ago
  I may have got it. The problem is that there is no gradient with computers. I either control my computer, or I dont. There is no middle ground. I can either surf the internet and post anonymously, or I cannot. Nobody in power is fighting for my right to do those things. Everybody is more concerned about their own petty little secrets than about the freedom that I care about. 'Mob Rule' has a bad name, but the simple truth is that democracy and freedom is based around it. Warlords and Dictators, oppressive governments and totalitarian states dont exist because of 'Mob Rule', they exist because of the absence of it. Eqypt is just now fighting for 'Mob Rule', and it is doing so with a mob. 'Mob Rule' is just another name for democracy. Sometimes the mob can be ugly, when they hang witches or crucify innocent people, but it can also be awesomely constructive. Freedom is like that.
• lhnz 16y ago
  He's opposing a viewpoint that assumes that you can only have extremes which strengthens the belief that there are only two choices (two-valued orientation). Perhaps take a read of http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html ("The Edge of the Circle")? Do we really need to have complete anarchy or for the government to have complete authority? Seems like a bit of a slippery-slope fallacy to me.
  • seabee 16y ago
    aka a "false dichotomy"