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 (6810)	4/4/2002 5:53:48 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Hate to drop a bomb and leave, but I can only stay on a few more minutes. I hope I get some reactions for my inbox tomorrow. Anyway, if I miss something tonight, take care.....

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 6:00:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

and seeks to defend it, not only for its sake, but for the sake of the world, which must progress or die. Do you mean "the sake of the world" or "the sake of the rest of the world, which must progress or die"? Do you mean "Western Civilization" or "Western Civiilization as practiced in the US"?

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 6:27:04 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Hi Neo, I can't get to this tonight but out of respect for the time time and effort it took to write, will give you my reactions tomorrow. (Though Karen's is a damn good place to start).

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 6:41:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person, One more question. Why is this language important to that sentence or the overall point: "He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person"?

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 7:00:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person, and that we should be very careful about stirring up anger and division in society by clumsy attempts to interfere with community norms and private traditions." What does he understand about attacking cherished beliefs which may be different from his own, which might, in fact, be liberal? Sometimes nothing stirs up more anger than resistance to change. I think back to some "private traditions" involving prejudice, for example.

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 8:08:55 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'm curious: would you say that Western Civilization has reached its peak, or is it something that is still growing and developing? Is the natural exchange of conflicting ideas an attack on fundamental values, or is it part of the process by which a living civilization grows and adapts? Do you find it interesting that your brand of conservatism inspires so little interest in Western Europe, the cradle of Western Civilization? He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person Is this a one-way sort of thing? I've noticed little hesitation among conservatives when it comes to attacking cherished beliefs that they happen to dislike, but of course those conservatives may have definitions that differs from yours. He is leery of an activist government, and sets a high bar before supporting anything resembling social engineering. Do you think this excludes the religious right and other "social conservatives" from your definition of conservatism? I can think of few groups anywhere with a greater and more consistent devotion to social engineering through government intervention. I could think of a few other comments, but that will do for now....

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 8:35:57 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person An excellent description of Political Correctness and identity-politics and identity-intellection. Would that one had the time to compile a collection of attacks on cherished beliefs and customs made by conservatives. What beliefs and customs may one attack? Uncherished ones? None at all? (because everything everybody believes should be sacrosanct?) What does "attack" mean? Does it include pointing out defects in the belief or custom from the point of view of the critic? Is being a critic of anyone's beliefs or customs "attacking" them? PC reigns.

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/4/2002 9:59:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I thought it was rather a pretentious commentary. I agree and disagree with portions of it to the same degree that I agree and disagree with this post that I found on the web... WHAT LIBERALISM MEANS TO ME The frame of reference for the true liberal is Western Civilization. It is something that commands allegiance because of its inherent goodness and beauty, but also because it is the basis for the modern world and its achievements. Without Western Civilization, it is almost impossible to imagine the development of democracy, rational jurisprudence, laboratory science, advanced technology, or the hope of bringing the mass of humankind out of the bondage of ignorance, disease, and endless toil. The liberal looks with alarm at attacks on the fundamental values and practices of Western Civilization, and seeks to defend it, not only for its sake, but for the sake of the world, which must progress or die. Many things may change without harm; many things may even be an improvement; but no one should treat lightly the fundamental ideas, precepts, customs, attitudes, and institutions that have developed over millennia in the West, and which incorporate within them mechanisms for criticism and improvement that should be respected. The liberal understands that one cannot put everything up for grabs without losing one's bearings, and therefore that hallowed ideas and institutions should be treated carefully, and much should be considered as settled at any given time. He understands that society has to work through its problems, and that no governmental solution exists for many of them. He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person, and that we should be very careful about stirring up anger and division in society by clumsy attempts to interfere with community norms and private traditions. He is leery of an activist government, and sets a high bar before supporting anything resembling social engineering. In other ways, he considers the onus on those who want to use governmental power to accomplish their ends. He is leery of taking economic power out of the private sector, and of federalizing issues that could be dealt with by the states, for example. He is inclined to view favorably and encourage "mediating institutions", public but non- governmental corporations, like churches and charitable foundations and civic groups, from the Boy Scouts to the Kiwanis. The liberal wants to see certain values honored: merit, honesty, trustworthiness, devotion to duty, among them. He would like to see a world where all take seriously their responsibilities, and can be counted on. Human beings may falter, but it is better to do one's best than to cynically turn one's back on standards of character and decorum. I have tried to give an idea of what I think liberalism is. I am curious to see what comments are elicited.......

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/5/2002 12:13:21 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I TOLD you to keep your head down and your helmet on. You forgot. He understands that an attack on a person's cherished beliefs and customs is an attack on that person, and that we should be very careful about stirring up anger and division in society by clumsy attempts to interfere with community norms and private traditions. Well, isn't that a bizarre thing to say? You can't attack, oh, say, keeping slaves as they do in Mauritania? Or as was formerly done right here in these United States? How about Clitorectomy? Stoning adulterers? Whipping rape victims for shaming their family? How about what Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, should they not have attacked the cherished belief and custom that relegated blacks to the back of the bus? How about the cherished belief and custom that priests who rape children should be handled "in house," as it has been, while other child rapists get handled by calling the police? How about not educating women, only men? How about the belief and custom, so cherished in certain societies, that it's great to bomb infidels and go to heaven with the virgins? Oh, yes, I'm not supposed to mention the g&dd#n virgins except respectfully, I think. Come on, Neo. Cut the crap. If that's what "conservative means, I guess I'm not one. Still a rightwinger, though, so Poet isn't likely to let me in LWP and JLA isn't likely to kick me out of RWET. Oh, and there's another problem. It's this: Amendment I Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [NOTE: AND THAT INCLUDES ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So regardless of whether you think your cherished beliefs should be protected from the likes of us or not, the basic law of the land says otherwise. And it rules.

To: Neocon who wrote (6810)	4/5/2002 8:37:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I and planned to digest your answers to my questions first but, since some discussion of substance began last night, I'll offer up my overall impression of the substance of your message. The message is, in a nutshell, that Western civilization is the preferred model and it's ideas, institutions, morals, customs, etc. are to be defended by both society and government. That takes five paragraphs. Slipped into the next to the last paragraph there's one sentence about the government allowing capitalism to flourish. Nary a mention of private property or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I know that you are of the traditionalist school of conservatism, but I still find that dramatic an emphasis odd.