This is ok until we are talking about "mindsets",
but if any resulting action causes the loss of
human rights - such as, say, the Taliban's "mindset",
actions are necessary. And yes, these human rights
are negotiated, relative values, but I think
they can be condensed with our present
available overview of history;
besides the basics of rights to all
the physical/free movement etc, there are such as rights
to education/information/free choice
(again, upto the point of not infringing
on other people's rights.)
So I would conclude, that if a "mindset"
stops the rest of humanity in cooperating to
save the planet and they have the physical means
and will to do so, than we would have to do
all we can, ultimately by force, to change their
"mind".
Eva
...
>
> There is nothing I fear more than that default characteristic. History has
> provided ample demonstration that it always kicks in. Two principles of
> social behaviour that I hold sacred are: 1) respect each others' views; and
> 2) leave each other alone. To me, this implies a diversity of opinion, and
> no dominant mindsets. It allows for strong mindsets, but implies a system
> of rights and laws which ensures that these cannot impose themselves on
> other mindsets which do not buy into them. But now I suppose I'm being the
> idealist.
...
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
