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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (54750)	10/25/2002 10:45:44 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

>>I think we should wish to rid ourselves of that kind of parochial approach to discussions.<< Curious as to why? Does it mean conceding the center? One of the things that puzzles conservatives is the blinders that liberals wear towards their liberalism. Liberal isn't a dirty word, it's a very respectable word with a long history of good ideas, good people, and good deeds. It's plain as day that modern liberalism and 19th century liberalism are different things, but I am perfectly willing to concede that many present day liberal institutions are well intended, for example, the ACLU. I admit that I have blinders on. I see things from my point of view. It's kind of like being in a room where everybody is wearing different colored spectacles. If I wear blue spectacles, the world will look different than if I were wearing red spectacles. Increasingly, my perception of discussing things with you is that when I say, I see the world this way because my spectacles are blue, you are not willing to say, I see the world this way because my spectacles are red. Instead, you seem to argue that your spectacles are clear.

To: JohnM who wrote (54750)	10/27/2002 1:01:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I genuinely no longer have the slightest idea how to talk with you in a reasonable way, Nadine. Whatever I say, becomes for you an occasion to get angry. Addressing the actual content of articles whose opinions are opposed to your own would go a long way, instead of a) ignoring the content and attacking the author (as you do with Sullivan, Warren, etc) or b) ignoring the content and claiming that the style alone renders the message out-of-bounds: "change of subject", "gotcha", "uncivil" "labeling opponents" "name-calling", etc. It's a wonderful way to avoid ever having to answer an opposing argument; you can just complain of your injuries instead.