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: E who wrote (11428)	4/15/2001 7:04:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

BTW, to most fundamentalists, the label is not anything to "defend" against. They wear it with pride, I believe. Many probably do. ButI'm quite sure they do not mean by it what you apparently mean by it. Just as if you wear the label "woman" with pride you don't accept with that label the characteristics that the Taliban put on it. What I found objectionable in your post was to take characteristics you have noticed in some people you have identified (or who have self-identified to you) as fundamentalists and assume that all fundamentalists have those characteristics. It's very much like, I regret to say, the KKK pointing to the number of blacks in prison as proof that all blacks are crooks and lawbreakers and untrustworthy persons. You and I know it isn't true, but how do you fight that approach to people when you follow the same basic principle -- labeling a class on the bais of some experiences with it -- yourself? I was disappointed in your initial post. I'm equally disappointed in your defense of it.

To: E who wrote (11428)	4/15/2001 7:15:04 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Do I detect correctly that my post giving some of the characteristics I have come to associate with fundamentalists displeased you? E, I stated in my last post that I have no displeasure with your list. Still don't. The only reason I stepped into this discussion was to point out what appears to be either an unintended stereotype or logic flaw as you use that list to "define" fundamentalists. My intention was to give you an opportunity to amend your blanket application of that list to fundamentalists if you so wished. Usually I avoid intervention in other people's disputes. The only reason I waded into this one was that I am cognizant of charges on these threads that posters tend to overlook overstatements when the poster is on the same "side" and overreact when the poster is on the other "side." You and I have found ourselves on the same side in several discussions on this thread. That is not the history with JLA and me. So I thought I'd point out what might have been fodder in your post for his retort. I would not automatically "tarnish" someone who calls himself a fundamentalist. I would always want to know what they wish to force others to do before they are ethically "tarnished" in my eyes. I'm glad to see you clarify that. I'm going back into non-intervention mode now. Peace. Karen