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 (4634)	3/25/2002 11:25:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

the idea being that when there is liberty of opnion, in a given area, one can argue the preferability of a particular belief. I think this waters it down too much. The instinct, to me, seems stronger than mere preferability. It also doesn't seem to me to be as reasoned as your moral argument, of which, BTW, I could argue the converse, socially. I don't want to suggest neurosis, but preferability is not enough, I don't think, hence my use of "need." (that is why I included forbearance). My thoushalt, the one you altered, used the word, forbearance first. Why was it not adequate there? 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"). First of all, if you really, really don't think that believing in an elephant god reaches the level of "foible," at least, then you have a "foible" of your own. <g> Secondly, you still are equating condescension for a belief with condescension for the person who holds that belief. And thirdly, discussion in good faith requires honesty above all else. I have never argued religious beliefs with anyone here. I have never made the slightest attempt to influence anyone's belief. This is partly because I sincerely believe that people may believe whatever they want and partly because haven't been sufficiently interested in religion to study it enough to engage in such a discussion. My discussion has been aimed at getting a better understanding of believers and giving them a better understanding of seculars. For believers to gain this understanding, they have to recognize that seculars find their beliefs a little squirrelly and not get all defensive about that but to acknowledge it and move forward. I'm all for doing that gingerly. I thought I had been doing that gingerly, with good faith, affection, and a little humor, never with antagonism. Obviously, it wasn't always received that way, but I do the best I can. I'm not going to pretend that anything that someone thinks is sacred is somehow sacred. Karen