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 : Where the GIT's are going -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (11309)	10/5/2000 1:18:39 PM
From: Cisco	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 225578

Men seem to be able to talk "at" the other person/people...Don't know how many actually might change their mind because of the discourse. Most seem to be pretty well up and locked. Women will talk about it. But we do get emotional if someone won't at least try to understand why we think the way we do... Interesting! So did I strike an emotional cord with my one liner? Do you classify me as a talk at'er? Perhaps I will have to work on my image.<g> Maybe I need to lead with my heart a little more! That being said, it is a lifelong observation and truly a disappointment to me that people, no matter where we are and how close to us they are, can't really talk about political issues without getting upset. (Thinking close friends, family, etc) I've never really figured out why that is. Politics and religion are a lot alike! I oppose big government for the same reason I oppose fundamentalist religion. They both attempt to enslave their followers and make them co-dependent upon a system. To threaten the system is to threaten their security blanket. Listen to what Erich Fromm, William James, and others list as the functions of religion in society are and see if they can't be applied equally to government: • to avoid error in order to escape punishment. • to compensate for deprivations and suffering. • to provide rules for correct behavior, to be perfect so that the rewards are guaranteed. • to maintain social control, often by the clergy or others seeking power, and to salve the consciences of those who abuse it. Once a person has become co-dependent upon a belief or political system, they are by definition addicted to it. To challenge the object of anyone's addiction is to create excessive fear in that individual. Father Leo Booth in his book When God Becomes a Drug states that: It slides into addiction the more it is used as a nursing bottle to fix us. Psychiatrist N.S. Xavier, in his book The Two Faces of Religion, say that religious beliefs and practices become dysfunctional when the "do not express healthy striving, but are attempts to ward off repressed impulses." He also makes the very important observation that when an unhealthy belief or behavior is challenged, the result is excessive fear. Anyone who has ever tried to challenge a religious addict's belief system has undoubtedly been met with a hostility bordering on fury. People who are spiritually healthy will not react with fear and anger to questions about their beliefs and practices. So I would suggest a similar etiology lies behind the reason many people have a hard time discussing both religion and politics.