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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (5611)	2/13/2001 4:47:17 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Absolutely, calling X disturbed was nasty in my judgment, and to me there is a distinction and I bet there are many who don't like X at all who laughed and readily agree with your sentiment. Personally, I think calling someone disturbed here would always be nasty. I will probably always think it is nasty. And there is a distinction-- I am not saying YOU are nasty,YOU I have always found polite and thoughtful, which is probably why it surprised me, but the act of calling someone disturbed is very nasty. However, my point was that that you seemed to be saying she was disturbed because she was arguing for slavery or that slavery was moral or something (I'm already forgetting the details and have no urge to really keep on with this for long), and then you said that she was looking at it only from the slaveowner's POV, and I didn't see that in X's post. I just saw that she said SHE didn't like slavery, but that it wasn't a moral absolute, that it depended on the society's decision on how to label it. And if you are calling her disturbed for her belief that slavery is not immoral without a society saying that it is so, then I think you are acting from an emotional, and not an intellectual, motivation. And if you think that calling someone disturbed is not nasty, then you must explain to me why it isn't, and I will try to see it through your eyes. I disagree that it is impossible to move outside of one's own system - although it often may be very difficult to accept a new system as truth, or even as an equal possibility. DOn't we do that all the time when we study other cultures? Occasionally, people even come to the conclusion that the American or the CHristian or the whatever way isn't the best- and accept another way. Now I happen to disagree with X becuase I think we all for some reason, despite the apparent differences in cultures, have the same basic conditions driving us, that all men seem to function by some pretty basic and similar behavioral rules, just as there are similar patterns in family structures, and male-female relationships,and even politics, and while on the surface there can appear to be huge discrepancies, resulting from differing reactions to a large variety of circumstances, they all stem from something basically the same--- whether it's from genetic evolution or put there by some external force. BUt I';m getting offtrack, and my brain hurts.