Those who reply to any plea for freedom invariably fall into a certain trap. I have debated with numberless different people on these matters, and I confess I find it amusing to see them tumbling into it one after another. I remember discussing it before a club of very active and intelligent Suffragists, and I cast it here for convenience in the form which it there assumed. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I say that to take away a poor man's pot of beer is to take away a poor man's personal liberty, it is very vital to note what is the usual or almost universal reply. People hardly ever do reply, for some reason or other, by saying that a man's liberty consists of such and such things, but that beer is an exception that cannot be classed among them, for such and such reasons. What they almost invariably do say is something like this: «After all, what is liberty? Man must live as a member of a society, and must obey those laws which, etc., etc.» In other words, they collapse into a complete confession that they are attacking all liberty and any liberty; that they do deny the very existence or the very possibility of liberty. In the very form of the answer they admit the full scope of the accusation against them. In trying to rebut the smaller accusation, they plead guilty to the larger one.
Самыми частыми "последними словами приключенца" в играх, которые я вожу, является заявка "Одеваю противогаз".
Шутка.
Купил себе футболку с Капитаном (= Жена хотела себе Старка, но для девушек "Джинсовая симфония" предлагала в основном Чёрную Вдову в розовых тонах.
