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: Dayuhan who wrote (53587)	8/31/1999 1:44:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Opposing slavery means imposing emancipation upon the slaveholder; opposing segregation means imposing integration upon the South; opposing murder means imposing sanctions upon those who do so; opposing dictatorship means trying to supplant it with democracy. Sometimes, opposing something does not directly translate into enforcement, but may remain in the realm of moral suasion, but it is untrue to say that there is a "world of difference".....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (53587)	8/31/1999 2:00:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

What if you think it is universally right to impose a universal rule against, oh, say, genocide? Or child prostitution? or slavery? or torture? or imprisonment without trial? There are organizations that are chartered to do those things by seeking legislation and a consensus among the peoples and governments of all nations.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (53587)	8/31/1999 7:39:00 PM
From: E	Respond to of 108807

<<<There's a world of difference between a conviction that some things are universally wrong and must be opposed and a conviction that certain things are universally right and must be imposed. The latter is the province of the true believer, and I would say that true believers of any stripe are dangerous.>>> Well, Steven, it seems to me that you have substituted an epigram for substantive engagement with the issues that have been discussed here at some length and in some detail. I don't think there is "a world of difference." Really, opposing is often by imposing, and the distinction is often one without a difference, except a rhetorical one. Neocon gave examples of this. I want to say something about "true believers." One problem in this discussion is that the term contains meanings that aren't being specified. Contained in it is the additional meaning, or characteristic, of a sort of structured blindness to disconfirming evidence that ought to affect the core set of beliefs. But this is beyond, and different from, but IMO being confused with, the concept "passionate belief in particular values and views." If you define the term in the former way, as you and X and Cobe appear to do, well then of course your epigrammatic "true believers of any stripe are dangerous" will appear to be a truth. Left unanswered is the question of whether it is your opinion that those with passionate belief in particular values and views are necessarily dangerous.