Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/30/1999 5:01:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Thanks E, better from you....I have a friend with whom I periodically argue, who assumes that not believing in anything is the way to make everyone more peaceful, as if people only fight because of ideology, as opposed to greed and the lust for power...I say to him:" Someone had to believe strongly enough in democracy and even common decency to fight Hitler and keep Stalin at bay. If there had not been those with the terrible conviction that slavery was wrong, it is possible that even now the black man would be held as chattel. The person with no conviction often becomes the trimmer, going along to get along, easily bought, finger in the air, and following the tide...."

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/30/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

Last of the full house grubs

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/30/1999 5:16:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Interesting thoughts, E. Let me add a few thoughts of my own (though I can't guarantee that they too will be interesting). "Moderation" is sometimes a euphemism for "indifference." I know that I am much more "moderate" on matters I do not care much about, or simply do not know enough about to form an opinion. It is also certainly true that it is one thing to be "immoderate" for or against something or other, and quite another to try to force others to accept your point of view. You put it this way: I think the crucial distinction between the dangerous and the undangerous is not the degree of intensity of belief, but the degree of commitment to the idea that free discourse and civil argument can, over time, lead to compromises or solutions that can be lived with by all parties. I would agree -- when we are talking about situations where free discourse and civil argument are indeed the norm, as I think they generally are in this country today. We should remember, however, that it is not always or everywhere so. Suppose, to use an example you cite yourself, the "moderates" in society had allowed the suppression of free speech ("free discourse"). What "compromises" can then be reached -- and with whom? In such cases, perhaps old Goldwater (to think I should ever quote Goldwater!) was right when he said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Joan

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/30/1999 7:33:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

If there were no true believers there would be no Hitler types- for example, agnostics, whom have they persecuted? People who are not nationalists- do they band together to persecute ultra-nationalists for being nationalistic? I don't think so. Of course there are true believers and you are correct that it is frequently necessary to rise up and be militant in order to stop them- they are the ones who create the dangerous "Zeitgeist" you speak of, to blame the people who simply watch the true believers fomenting their irrational movements is pretty much a case of blaming the victim.

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/31/1999 12:56:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Does not being "politically correct" then put one into the dangerous category? After all, isn't not allowing being inoffensive to anybody pretty much the same as not allowing dissent? Del

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/31/1999 9:11:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I disagree. I think "truly moderate individuals" have always been rare, but completely antithetical to those who "go along with the zeitgeist with only the most respectful dissent." The examples that come to my mind immediately are Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, and Plutarch.

To: E who wrote (53551)	8/31/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think the crucial distinction between the dangerous and the undangerous is not the degree of intensity of belief, but the degree of commitment to the idea that free discourse and civil argument can, over time, lead to compromises or solutions that can be lived with by all parties. As you know, I have been away from the thread, so I am simply leaping in here out of the blue. However, I think that this part of your statement is very important. Even when compromises or solutions cannot be attained, commitment to the idea of free discourse and civil argument can make the difference between the dangerous and those who seek to preserve one another's liberties and show one another respect, even in disagreement.