It can be inferred though that by banning words, we're in effect banning the ideas that they encapsulate. So while the "literal meaning" of certain words is fine for "polite conversation," when people use those words to express anger or frustration, we believe that these are unsightly emotions that we wish to normatively repress. But doing so denies the notion that there are times when anger or frustration may be called for, and that it may be healthy during these times to express this in a candid and unfiltered way.
This is the maxim of the parasite and lazy person, or one disillusioned by inefficiency. The philosophy goes against any sense of improvement, instead being content with the lowest-quality functional level. </Andrew Ryan>
... You made a valid counterargument and, in the next sentence, killed it with the same thing you were arguing against.
Your point is (if I'm understanding you correctly) that any "construct" (of rules, or whatever) that disallows your practice of expressing yourself freely doesn't impair your
ability to express yourself.
But then you say that even without Massassi, we'd still be able to express ourselves freely
as limited by our national laws.
Going by your previous argument, regardless of what our national laws would say, you would still have the
ability to express yourself as you pleased.
I agree, unless there were pervasive, normative expectations that actually psychologically impeded you from doing certain things....
And FGR, I know where I am, but I'm not giving up hope that
can cure
.
GoY's Pessimistic Soy Boy Toy
