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: Solon who wrote (5767)	3/30/2002 8:40:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Solon, I understand where you're coming from. Neo and I covered all that. Neocon seems to be urging that a certain immunity be granted the ideas of those couching their thoughts in religious terms, or when they reflect sentiments consistent with a religious character. Yes, he was urging that, but he backed off it. What we agreed to was that these beliefs were so intrinsic that they warranted being treated with a certain seriousness, but not that they were sacrosanct. Such a mendacious allowance of unnatural margin in favour of the ridiculous...is itself ridiculous and deserving of opprobrium. We specifically agreed that none of these ideas was immune from constructive criticism. This is not to suggest that the people who hold ridiculous ideas are themselves ridiculous; only that their ideas should not enjoy a special immunity to the natural judgements of reason and common-sense. I don't think that Neo ever really accepted the way you and I make this distinction. Perhaps the essential, inherent, existential nature of the ideas we're talking about make it hard for those who hold them to differentiate between the idea and the owner of the idea. In a much earlier discussion, I recall JLA arguing that what you and I call ideas weren't ideas at all but the essence of the person. In any event, Neo seemed to be satisfied that treating the ideas with some seriousness would obviate this problem. Ridiculous ideas invite ridicule as the primary natural response. Yes, they do, and what Neo and I discussed was the exercise of some forbearance in expressing that primary natural response. Solon, what it comes down to for me is that ridicule isn't nice. We all know that. Now, there's nothing to say that we have to be nice all of the time, that every idea is worthy of respect, or that everyone deserves to be treated with niceness, only that, when we're not nice, we recognize that what we're doing isn't nice. Ridicule, mocking, scorn, and contempt are also not constructive. What does it accomplish to communicate to someone that you look down on his religious beliefs, especially when he naturally interprets that as looking down on him? I understand the utility of contempt when faced with believers who sanctimoniously look down on you. Absent direct provocation, though, showing contempt accomplishes nothing, but, rather, just adds to the general nastiness of the environment in which we live. It seems better to me to exercise forbearance at least until and unless provoked with equivalent scorn. We can discuss religion without gratuitous contempt. It seems to me... Karen