--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Not arguing, just some points your post triggered. > > > > > A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it > > was a good counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- > > parapharsing "racism IS bad and I will speak up against it > > and try to uplift weak and/or irrational views." > > I would suggest that this is a rather superficial > example of the phenomenon, designed to support the > case that we *should* try to change other people's > minds. The example given is racism. Yeah, sure... > everybody likes to think they're against racism, > and that they'd speak up if someone said some racist > remarks in their presence. > > But that's not what we're talking about.
Well, its what I was thinking about. I was thinking in broader terms than just the current discussion. As I said, "Not arguing, just some points your post triggered." And thoughts Judy's post triggered. If my net etiquitte is off key, and if I should have started another thread so that all discussion on this thread remain strictly on-message, then OK. But I think the thoughts in my are relevant to this discussion as well as in a broader context. (Useful is another criteria altogether. :) ) > > Your counter -- there is no TRUTH > > I never said that. There might be. I don't know. > All I know is that I have never been privy to > the TRUTH, and expect never TO be. Therefore I > don't delude myself into thinking I "know" it. :-) OK. Thank you for the clarification. I was roughly paraphrasing my take on your position, and I now see your distinctions clearer. > > > -- with the implication possibly > > (perhaps not intended) being to not speak up against things like > > racism and not bothering to try to uplift weak or irrational views > > becasue they may be right. > > You're making the leap you were intended to make > here, dude, thinking "racism" when you should be > thinking "trying to convert someone else of the > unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs. "I SHOULD be thinking". You are telling me how I should think? > It's EASY to justify impassioned debate if you can > pretend you're "fighting racism." Racism was an example Judy brought up. I find, as I assume she does, that when one generalizes about a specific set of situations (e.g., trying to convert others unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs", its useful to look at that generalized observation in a broader context to see if it still flies. Racism was an example to do that. I was not trying to take the discussion off topic (nor was she, I beleive); my post ended back "on topic". You may not find the above process of testing hypotheses in a wider context useful to you. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. > But it's not quite > as easy to do so when what you're defending is an > active attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs > on another person. I am not arguing for the above. But do you feel that "an active attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs on another person" is always wrong in all contexts?
