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 (41727)	12/26/2001 6:16:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I wasn't intending to belittle. I apologize to those who took it as such when it wasn't intended as such. I also apologized to those who were hurt by my comments. I wasn't intending to belittle, either. When I was accused of being patronizing, a form of belittling, I resisted the charge, although I knew it was so, because I was engaging in an abstract discussion, not intending to hurt anyone. I eventually acknowledged that my comments were patronizing. In these discussions sometimes we support the position of others. Sometimes we are, dare I say, relativistic about them. And sometimes we think our position is the superior one. Whenever that last situation occurs, and it happens all the time, there is an implication that is unflattering to the holders of other positions. You clearly think that believing in God is the superior position. I clearly think that not believing in God or believing in a more abstract, rational version is the superior position. If we think our positions are superior, then we are looking down on the holders of the other position even if we have no intent to do so and there's nothing personal in the argument. If our position is superior, then theirs must be inferior. Period. Another example. We both clearly think our position on force is superior to JLA's. By doing so, we look down on him in some small way. When we argue with him, we belittle him, not overtly, not in an insulting or mean spirited way, but indirectly--there must be something inferior about his thinking or he would hold our position rather than his. We're doing this in the course of an abstract discussion and we all know there's nothing personal in it. Anyway, JLA has too thick a hide to be bothered about it even if it were personal. But we're still comparing his position unfavorably with ours. Which is inherently belittling. You looked down on nonbelievers when you implied we were sorry souls in need of help. I looked down on adult believers in Santa Claus when I implied they were were insufficiently evolved. I don't think there is a difference in what we did. I'm still looking for someone to identify the salient difference for me. Karen