Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Reductio ad absurdum

Paraphrasing Yuga's comments on blogging as a privilege and not a right:

Yes, writing is a privilege. It is not for everybody. It is only for those who have pen and paper. It is only for those who have enough time on their hands. It is only for those who have something to write or say.

So, don’t be surprised to learn that the demographics of writers are the ones who can pay for pen and ink and paper in their homes and offices or even that goose quill or fountain pen. Don’t be surprised that these writers are the ones who have enough time to write and read instead of worrying about their eight-to-five jobs (or worse, look for a job)....


Wow. With this sort of thinking, could a Charles Dickens or Jose Rizal or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Anne Frank ever emerge?

6 comments:

  1. Blogging is so year 2000 really...it has reached critical mass and will slide down slowly. Phil. blogging meanwhile is becoming a pissing contest in all fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was struck by this:

    "Do not equate it with your constitutional right to suffrage or to get a decent education"

    He's right.

    However, we *should* instead equate it with our constitutional right to free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous: oh, that it has. But that's par for the course.

    Roy: he he, and did you notice the tautology in the original statement?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like how one puts it: Blogging is a right, but the "privileged" ones are the only ones who can do it.

    Ahh, reductio ad absurdum indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi, Arbet: thanks.

    Hi, Shari: blogging-as-right derives from the human right of free speech. I object to the "privileged ones" argument on two grounds:

    1) It's not true. In this country, Internet is largely accessible to those who want it. In my part of the world, it's P10 per hour. Far less than four text messages.

    2) It gives way to the legal definition of "privilege" -- and that has dire consequences.

    ReplyDelete