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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3604)	3/20/2002 8:31:37 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'm probably at root of this prejudice against atheists... fortunately I bear blithely up under the strain. Certainly I've made no bones about my contempt for certain strains of belief, particularly (well, inevitably) when those beliefs seem to require certain 'political' standpoints. So if one then conflates or confuses my distaste for the belief with my (generally non-existent) feelings for the person... OTOH I have no idea what the second part was on about. You're right, drawing whales is preferable and more important. Humpbacks are undeniably ugly if you get to realistic, however...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3604)	3/20/2002 12:21:17 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

So you think it is taking things way too seriously to be offended that the Evil One did not receive even an admonition for posting patently false and inflammatory ethnic slurs, although the same individual authority came down hard on JLA in the middle of an escalating fight where the other party was "throwing punches"? Gee, I guess we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. The misrepresentation about my comments on the irreligious, is to state that I was offended by them having opinions. I am not. I was talking about an set of attitudes towards believers and belief. Nor did I make a blanket condemnation, as you are now trying to imply, of all of those "seculars" on the site. I have my own opinions of E and what getting into one of these arguments with E means, but it is immaterial to stating my impression or opinion. I am happy to underline that it is my feeling, and may be wrong. I was encouraged to talk about my feelings. On the political score, one runs into Chomskyites all over the place around here. Also, it is a mischaracterization to refer such views merely to the lunatic fringe, when a substantial number of liberal Democrats began to accept such views under the rubric of anti- anti- communism, and when such views are found on the Right among libertarians and other paleo- cons. Finally, if I have done you an injustice, I apologize, but in my mind, I associate a (relatively sophisticated) version of such views with you. I have never known anyone who thought that our foreign policy in the post- war period was an unqualified success, or who thought that there were no problems in the Reagan Administration, for that matter. The Bay of Pigs and Vietnam alone are obvious sore spots. In the Reagan Administration, there is a question about whether enough was done to force spending reductions, a sense of chagrin over the overtures to the Iranians in Iran/Contra, and a sense that Reagan allowed too much messiness and leakage in his White House, among other things. Anyway, I think this will cover it for now.......

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3604)	3/20/2002 2:08:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

There are actually people out there who believe that US foreign policy since WW2 has been consistently brilliant, devoid of error or miscalculation. There are people out there who believe that containment was an unqualified success, a triumph without errors or victims. There are people who believe that everything the US does is right, simply because we are the good guys and we do not do wrong, either by intent or by error. There are people who believe that Reagan's administration was an absolute and unqualified success. There will always be such blindness on both ends of the spectrum. That is no cause for gloom, and only those who take things far too seriously could be reduced to gloom by the ravings of the nut cases on either fringe. The only sensible avenue is to discard the fringe inanities and seek understanding in the middle ground, where we always find that both sides have a part of the picture, and that both sides are incapable of recognizing other parts. Maybe, but I think there are far more of the opposite opinion (i.e. the opinion Neo was complaining about). I do agree that both ideas are examples of the fringe, not mainstream thought. I do think US foreign policy since WWII has overall been a success, but it would be crazy to say that no errors where made or that everything the US has ever done as a country has always been both good practical policy and morally correct. Similarly I think Reagan's terms of office where successful, even unusually successful but it was not without flaws, weaknesses or mistakes. I've never actually heard anyone say that either the US or Reagan has never made any mistakes or done anything wrong. I have heard people attacking both as being predominately wrong and/or idiotic (roughly the opposite of my viewpoint, and I believe the viewpoint Neo was complaining about). Tim