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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10550)	10/21/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Hofstadter died long ago, Johannes, long before this particular "culture war" broke out. I will get back to the substance of your post later, after I have had time to digest it. Just wanted to defend a dead man against the charge that he was using ad hominem arguments to discredit people he may never even have heard of. BTW, I used the quotation from Hofstadter (the one you cite) in the context of a discussion of the Nazi phenomenon. I then asked whether that "paranoid style" was prevalent today. The only person I specifically cited as an exemplar was Louis Farrakhan, hardly a representative of the conservative Christian viewpoint. I added that I thought that the true "paranoid style" was a fringe phenomenon, at the moment. However, I still believe that some of the rhetoric , if not the substance of the paranoid style, has seeped into mainstream discourse. jbe

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10550)	10/21/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Oh dear. Once more we have the hot-button abortion issue raised as a pike on which to hoist the head of "liberals" everywhere. So, Johannes, do you consider RU-486 to be "infanticide"? Or pinching off their little heads, as brees so eloquently put it? How about the IUD? It works post-conception, you know. There's a variety of "morning after" treatments which college health services know about, but which remain pretty much unknown elsewhere for fear of getting in view of the RR. I've posted my thoughts. If you want to reduce abortions, reduce unwanted pregnancies. Education is the key there, it seems to work pretty well in Western Europe. Somehow, it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that sits well with the "decline of the West" moral crusaders who post here. It wouldn't mean an absolute end to abortions, granted, but an absolute ban is not politically in the cards either, by all indications. Or maybe the "Christian Nation" crowd will convince everybody with their compelling logic, I couldn't say. It is no fringe element of liberalism that champions the raising of homosexuality to equality with the grand human archetype that is heterosexuality. The grand human archetype that is heterosexuality? You might want to read Plato's Symposium sometime. An interesting tidbit from a recent book review: Neither the terms nor the concepts ''homosexual'' and ''heterosexual'' even existed until the late 19th century, when a newly powerful medical profession began defining homoerotic behavior as ''perversion'' or mental illness. Still, the conceptual distinction between homosexual and heterosexual had considerably more force in the minds of clinicians than in the sexual practices of men, even the men who worked for vice squads. (from search.nytimes.com An interesting review of an interesting sounding book there, though I doubt it would sway many of the "morally correct" here. That's life.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10550)	10/21/1998 8:00:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Re: "Liberalism" Johannes, it looks as if I am going to have to devote separate posts to each of the points you raise. Otherwise, my response will take too long to write -- and will be too long to read. Now, on "liberalism". Frankly, my impression is -- and please do not take offense -- that you have formed your conception of liberalism from, shall we say, "unfriendly" third sources. You certainly don't appear to have dipped into any of the standard histories of liberalism. In any event, liberalism is not a totalitarian ideology. (It is derived from the word "liber" -- free -- after all.) On the contrary, the meaning of the word has shifted and expanded and evolved so much since it first appeared, that you will find a very wide spectrum of beliefs and views among people who actually call themselves "liberals." You will not find all of them supporting all the policies that you think are an integral part of the "liberal agenda." Without elaborating on that point any further, let me say that although I consider myself a "liberal", I do not support sucking the brains out of babies. I have reservations about euthanasia. Although I fully support full civil rights for homosexuals, I do not see why they want -- or need -- homosexual marriage. And so forth. Even on these touchstone issues, there is less disagreement between you and at least this particular liberal than you assume. It does seem true that in deciding socio-political matters, I would look more to Reason as a guide, while you might look more to God. But that is natural; Liberalism, after all, was the child of the Enlightenment. I hope we are not going to see a repeat of the gargantuan struggle of the Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Faith!! (That was a jest, in case it was not ovious.) Anyway, the basic point I wish to make is this. Many self-described conservatives (who also have a wide range of views) set up a straw man: The Liberal. And they ascribe to this Liberal a certain set of views, a complete ideology. Then they attack it. Many self-described Liberals do the same: they too set up a straw man, ascribe to it a complete ideology, and then attack it. It is very easy to demolish a straw man. It is much harder, but a lot more rewarding, I think, for people to discuss a single real issue that divides them, to try to understand the other side's point of view, to see whether consensus or compromise can, or cannot be, reached on that particular issue. And then on to the next one. All IMO, of course. jbe

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10550)	11/6/1998 4:29:00 PM
From: zax	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The liberal position seems to be that there are no moral absolutes and that therefore morality is ultimately developed in a society via consensus And why is this not a reasonable assertion? Given no other means to finance a medically necessary operation to save the life of one's mother, would not armed robbery be morally acceptable? In disregarding relativism as a law of our physical universe, you would have people believe that a physical manifestation of the human form can travel at the speed of light. The Theory of Relativity has proven this impossible. This theory is the basis for modern day science. Thus, you argue that science itself is a joke. You argue that the science behind nuclear weaponry is impossible. I am VERY GLAD that right wingers are not in general very good mathemeticians for the power in their hands to DO GREAT WRONGS with their ideas of moral absolutes HORRIFIES ME TO NO END. I believe strongly in God. I believe God is that which we all are together... man, animal, earth, universe, subatomic particle. We live in a spiritual world. Life is a series of compromises and choices, meant to help bring about the greatest good for all in an imperfect world. Perfection is a goal for which we all must constantly strive, but none of us shall ever attain in this life. It is like trying to divide One by an exceedingly small number. You can approach infinity the smaller you make that number, but you WILL NEVER GET THERE. And may God have mercy on both of our souls, friend.