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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (61533)	10/8/2002 11:25:27 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If a standard is truly inappropriate or unrealistic, why would I, or anyone else, expect you to live up to it? It seems to me, in my limited understanding, that the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church is to set a standard which one cannot live up to. The whole point of confession is that nobody can live up to the standard, that humans always fall short, and that they must acknowledge their shortcomings and do penance for them. But they will go out again and fall short again. I know of no Catholic who has ever been able to go for a year without having any sins to confess -- that is, having lived that entire year up to the standard. And there are hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world. I would call that a pretty unrealistic standard.

To: Neocon who wrote (61533)	10/8/2002 12:36:27 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"For example, it is shameful to be an ignoramus" That is a ridiculous statement. Ludicrous...

To: Neocon who wrote (61533)	10/8/2002 1:18:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If that meets your definition of enlightened self-interest, than we are making progress.......... Just as a touchstone, let me mention that my involvement in this discussion began when I challenged the notion that there is such a thing as a duty to apologize absent the breaching of a contract. Right away I found myself in a position of explaining how I wasn't harboring sociopaths, if not actually one, myself. I'm pleased to see that you are now looking for common ground even though you perceive the common ground to be on your side of the line. <g> Real moral improvement requires the acceptance of blame, in order to establish responsibility and motivate one to reform. You and I have a lot in common, I think, in what we want the world to be. But we have some differences in how we get there. You have a very traditional, moralistic approach. I don't have any problem with that given that you are quite reasonable in its application. It seems to work for you and that's cool with me. You use words like "shame" and "blame" and "reform." Those words go with your outlook. You're right, I don't like those words. They do not resonate with me just as your scheme doesn't resonate with me. We have discussed the penal system and justice and Usama where you have talked of retribution and redemption, of punishment being purgative, of punishment making people take responsibility, "restoring the moral balance of the universe." Those don't resonate with me, either. Disapproval, and/or judging him responsible for some ill effect, IS blame. <<Main Entry: 1blame Pronunciation: 'blAm Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): blamed; blam·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old French blamer, from Late Latin blasphemare to blaspheme, from Greek blasphEmein Date: 13th century 1 : to find fault with : CENSURE <the right to praise or blame a literary work> 2 a : to hold responsible <they blame me for everything> b : to place responsibility for <blames it on me> - blam·er noun - to blame : at fault : RESPONSIBLE>> You will note that there are two different keywords in the two definitions. "Censure" has moralistic overtones. "Responsible" is more neutral. Now, you would say that being responsible is to be blamed because you have a moralistic view of things. If one has a moralistic outlook, then responsibility is a matter of morals. If one doesn't, however, then it doesn't necessarily. You may say that's too "passive," but I think it's more healthy and constructive to me morally neutral about "mistakes." It isn't necessary to hit bottom to correct a mistake or an debilitating habit, only a desire to be more successful. That is why I generally do not fix on the little things, but the big ones. I have focused on apologies, however, because considerateness generally is a big thing, and it is a good example of the quality. You are prepared to be reasonable about judging small things, which I appreciate. But that is different from being morally neutral about small things, about instead looking at them as beneficial or not rather than moral or immoral. If a standard is truly inappropriate or unrealistic, why would I, or anyone else, expect you to live up to it? People do that all the time. If I choose not to attend my cousin Charlie's wedding because I don't enjoy weddings or I don't want to make the trip, why should I be "blamed." It's silly to make that into a moral issue, IMO.