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 (5798)	3/30/2002 8:55:24 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Good morning Karen, Is it safe to come out? Is everyone finished expressing his or her legalistic interpretation of the thread header? Being a thread head is not an easy business, particularly with this group. I think Laz has his heart in the right place and has done a good job. I just wanted to say this.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5798)	3/30/2002 10:58:47 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Karen, you have made such a long post! I am very impressed! ;-) "I recall JLA arguing that what you and I call ideas weren't ideas at all but the essence of the person." The "essence" of a person would constitute an essential component of permanence. Ideas, however, like clothing, may be changed. As an extreme (but very common) example, consider what would happen if you were to change your ideas about God and become a raging Christian. Would anyone here recognize you except for the tell-tale trail of Baltimore style cheesecake! I had to remind you of that, Karen.<gg> "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" I agree with you in general on this. But it is a mistake to equate unconstructive with not nice...and vice versa. Ridicule is an effective means of emphasizing the barrenness or false nature of certain ideas. Emotions are not our enemies. When emotions are provoked, it gives shape and substance to the ideas being challenged. Indeed, in a very real sense they are carriers of "proof". Ought we to forego the experience of Tristram Shandy, Rabelais, Swift, Voltaire, Ben Jonson, Wilde, or a hundred others because they were not always "nice"? As I said, I do not object to the general principle of polite discourse. But any attempt to elevate the ridiculous to the sober and the serious is one that may be righteously opposed. As well, keep in mind that satire and irreverence are serious concerns. Ideas have consequences in action. Politely "discussing" (for instance) whether or not jews are vermin--is more than simply a parlour game. To pretend that ugly and ridiculous ideas may even be considered is to give them initial credibility. Ridicule is a safer and more honest response to the inane and the grotesque.