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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: b-witch who wrote (10581)	11/16/2001 4:39:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Seems to me that the right/wrong discussion needs to start with an agreement to maintain basic respect for each others' viewpoint. I'm happy to start there. But that already assumes something I think is not universally accepted. For example, how many of the Talbian leadership could start with an agreement to maintain basic respect for the viewpoint of any woman? The more I look at the world today, the more I read and think about it, the more I realize that there are fundamental and, I fear, unbridgable chasms which separate major cultures. In my training as a mediator, one thing I was taught was to start with basic principles all the parties can agree on, and work from there. But when I look at some of the cultures of the world, I can't see even a single basic principle to agree on to start from. Maybe I'm too negative, or too cynical. Or maybe not. Was it "The End of History" which postulated that Western Liberalism (using the term in its sociological, not political, sense) had won out, and that the great struggle between Liberal and non-Liberal thought was over? If so, I think the thesis was fundamentally wrong.