🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1802@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

[arguments deleted about what constitutes a special right]

>>The problem I see is that as more of us are threatened by a deteriorating
>>society, some of us will believe that we are safer if society's resources
>>aren't wasted protecting lesser citizens.  In fact, none of us is any
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>safer that the least protected citizen.
>
>Freudian slip here?  'lesser' than you envision yourself, perhaps?

I constructed that sentence with great care.  The clause in question starts
with the phrase "some of us will believe".  The remainder of the clause is
written from the perspective of the those who believe that way.  I am
certainly not one of the people who believe that way, so you have no
reason to infer that I see "lesser citizens".  My view follows and is
carefully constructed (except for the typo) to say that I only see
"less protected citizens", which certainly includes people you believe
are getting "special rights".

>I don't know for sure, but I would suspect that members of the groups
>being discussed would be less than thrilled that you regard them as
>'lesser citizens'.   It kind of gives credence to the idea that much of
>the advocacy for special protective status arises from feelings of guilt
>arising from ones own prejudices that one is trying to conceal by putting
>it on everyone else.  Getting one to go along with what is really an
>unfair practice by attaching guilt to those who oppose is hardly a new
>tactic.  It would be very unfortunate if it worked as well as some wish
>it would: one could silence all opposition simply by tossing a few
>derrogatories around...

What claptrap.  If you find my writing too hard to read, I can drop to
a lower grade level with some effort.

John Light