For all those that disliked me and my discussions I will just quote J.S. Mill on the subject of opinion and expression:


"With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but it will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation."

Hogwash

Originally Posted by Big

For all those that disliked me and my discussions I will just quote J.S. Mill on the subject of opinion and expression:


"With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but it will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation."

Yikes! Mill is evidently not an easy read.

That has to be a run-on sentence.

Back to Big.

Since Big holds an "unprevailing opinion" (on things of a non-wrestling nature), Mill is saying that employing "invective and sarcasm" against him is worthy of praise. Though Big may disaprove of such intemperence, the general public will not (disapprove).

"against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but it will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation."

Mill is saying that employing "invective and sarcasm" against him is worthy of praise.

You are wrong. Mill is not stating his opinion here. He is describing what happens.

He is basically saying that whatever the promoter of unpopular opinion does is often denounced but praised by society when the same tactics are employed by the promoter of a popular opinion.

Mill's opinion is that an unpopular opinion, even if wrong, is vital to finding the truth and the promoter of the unpopular opinion, if anything, should be welcomed as a source with whose help the popular opinion can be either strengthened, modified or denied.

Let me see if I understand this: does the publically-approved intemperence campaign against Big mean we can utilize sarcastic, invective-filled drunken rants as the mood fits us, and be praised?