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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (216292)	8/20/2007 4:43:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793928

I believe you did buy into Amanpour's thesis, which is that all three groups are basically the same. Believe what you will but it's not so. Having one common element does not make any three things the same. They would have to be the same in all or mostly all regards. You offered no rationale for finding the term "fundamentalist" to be meaningful "But WITHIN A RELIGION, there is another difference--the one between fundamentalists, who are defined by their strict commitment to some handed down religious law and those who are flexible about their tenets." OK, I'll elaborate in an attempt to connect the dots. The liberals on the flexibility continuum are more adaptable and tolerant, which is of value in a pluralistic society. The absolutists are strident and entrenched and intolerant. That's what it means to be absolutist. Sometimes they even fight with non-believers. The more globalized we are, the more tolerant and adaptable we need to be. And the less beligerent. We want to encourage what's healthy in society and discourage what's not. That's why it matters. As for blindly disagreeing...not me. Until and unless you offer rationales, you might as well be on the playground yelling "Yes, it is...no, it isn't, yes, it is." There's no thought process in that, critical or otherwise.