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 (69194)	12/3/2002 12:50:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I was with you up until: These are all objective judgments, that is, based on the criterion of what was more central and what more peripheral to the subject at hand (although the application of the criterion might foment debate). Huh? You are claiming that the choice of what is important in American history is an objective judgment? You've just dismissed the entire fields of Marxist analysis, feminist analysis, black studies, and a lot of others. They would all disagree with you about what should go in a course in American history. Maybe not the specific choices you mentioned, but some other choices you would make. And you said "I would consider..." and then say that those are objective judgments. Hang on. If that were true, you should have said "every rational person would consider . . ." If they're truly objective judgments, you and I would make identical choices. If we don't, then they're subjective, not objective, judgments because you and I are imposing our own views on the decision.