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: Lane3 who wrote (4309)	3/25/2002 10:51:10 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

In re neediness: we were supposedly trying for a less loaded formulation of the matter, one that did not automatically suggest neurosis or mere wishful thinking. I was trying to lead us to one, the idea being that when there is liberty of opnion, in a given area, one can argue the preferability of a particular belief. Thus, the religious are those who think that belief in God is better personally, certainly, but even socially, as well. The argument, then, is that faith serves certain perennial human needs, although it may not be universally palatable as a solution. In re sacred: the formulation is not meant to commit you to much of anything, except respect for your fellow man. But I also do not think that you can value anything unless there are some things that you hold sacred, although you may prefer a different word. Everything cannot be equally up for grabs. As Jewel says, some things are self- evident, or, if you prefer, there are assumptions without which we cannot proceed. Even if the basic hypotheses under which we operate are themselves subject to examination, they must be so gingerly, since such examination endangers the whole edifice, and can easily leave things in ruins. Do we really want everyone treating the ideas of freedom of speech, press, and assembly as if they were no more crucial to our political order than the line item veto? As far as those things go that others hold sacred, no one asked you to genuflect. Some things, one might not be able to help being antagonistic towards (that is why I included forbearance). But it seems to me that if one is going to discuss in good faith, it cannot be from a position of condescension ("we all have our foibles"). If you take the idea seriously, you can argue for or against, but not assume that it is ridiculous from the start.