At 07:33 PM 09/11/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to
>their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso.
This kind of dogmatic style is a total turn-off, simply a way of shutting
off any further discussion. It reminds me of all the sectarians I have
known. It's the same arrogance and rigidity.
I discovered a long time ago that the way to deal with disagreements in
e-mail discussions is _not_ to insult those who disagree with my opinions.
All that produces is flame-wars and the like. Instead, it's best to point
to the logical holes in your adversary's argument, any empirical
inaccuracies, or the incompleteness of their argument. (You did some of
this, Brad, but strayed. As did Néstor.) Instead of _asserting_ that
someone's view point has an odious ethical or political implication, it's
best to ask if the correspondent is implying such conclusions.
In addition, I think that people like Brad -- who are part of the hegemonic
ideological bloc in the media and universities -- need to realize that
there are other opinions in the world besides those which are acceptable in
the Clinton White House or the Bush inner circle. Of course, those of us
who have deviant political opinions have to tolerate your perspective all
the time, since we have no choice.
Or is appealing for a little tolerance of deviant political positions
contrary to the current definition of "democratic" values?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
