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: Neocon who wrote (4158)	3/22/2002 9:25:04 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Do you consider Life of Brian to be snickery?

To: Neocon who wrote (4158)	3/22/2002 10:07:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

although I am not sure how one has a non- snickery discussion of the silliness of burning bushes There are a couple of areas of difference between us. One is whether disrespecting a belief necessarily disrespects the believer. Another is the extent to which the traditions that accompany the belief are inherent or peripheral to the belief as targets of criticism. I had inquired earlier of you to what extent it was the perspective vs. the tone with which the perspective was expressed that was at issue. You said that, no, it wasn't just the tone, but I still wonder, which is why I asked the last question. Throughout you have used words like animus, contempt, hate, belittle, disparagement, condescending, snicker, trash. Those words are about attitude, an attitude that is most unpleasant to encounter. I continue to wonder how much the delivery of the message matters and how much of it is message. Certainly, the non-believers posting can whip up a lot of attitude. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of that. Let me ask you this. A little while ago, Jewel and I were discussing triangulation, his notion of a way to bridge the understanding gap. The discussion was earnest and sincere. (I'm sure Jewel will correct me if he saw it otherwise.) At the end of that discussion, I concluded that triangulation serves to explain how morality is determined, but does not speak to God's role in that. And that, despite Jewel's best efforts and mine, I was still left with only three potential explanations for belief: superstition, neediness, or blind acceptance. That statement was delivered without a hint of scorn, although those who had heard me snicker on previous occasions may have read some into it. The statement was simply a review of where I stood and an invitation to anyone else who could offer a different way of looking at it. Since your rant mentioned those words, perhaps my statement aroused your reaction. Or perhaps those words came from elsewhere. Regardless, my question is: what about making such a statement in the course of a substantive discussion of ideas, like the one between Jewel and me, as distinguished from making a crack about it? Does it matter in terms of the brite line? Karen