On our values and them

by

As we grow up we are taught many valuable lessons. Our teachers, our parents, our relatives, our spiritual leaders and our friends all contribute to the process that hopefully makes us into upright and moral people. But in this upside-down world, all of a sudden, right is wrong and wrong is right.
We were taught to work hard and that good things would follow. But when we do, they use our wealth against us in an attempt to discredit us.
We were taught to respect and learn from our elders. But when we do, they say that our elders are doddering old fools who shouldn’t be listened to.
We were taught the value of democratic institutions and the value of one’s vote. But when we use them to our advantage, they say that we have an unfair stranglehold on policy.
We were taught the value of organizing and speaking out for what we believe is true and correct. But when we do, they say that we are an angry, irrational and loud mob.
We were taught the value of maintaining firm uncompromising convictions rooted in respect for the inalienable rights of mankind. But when we do, they say that we are intransigent and closed-minded.
We were taught that some things are simply too important and must be fought for, even with force of arms if necessary. But when we try, they want to throw us in jail and say we are warmongers.
We were taught that one’s property is sacred and should never be stolen. But when we try to reclaim our stolen property, or even talk about reclaiming it, they characterize us as greedy and without empathy.
Perhaps it’s time we stopped listening to them.

21 thoughts on “On our values and <em>them</em>”

  2. Nice post Henry,
    But if you examine the history of mankind, and our varying cultural values from it, you’ll notice that no one has a monopoly over morality, or what we view as right or wrong. So how do we make sense of the world?
    We talk to each other, share ideas and experiences, read the paper, we have discussions, or debate. This is how we inform ourselves about how to proceed day to day. There’s also what some scientists call our “moral intuitions.” These intuitions guide us as well, but they are also influenced by our personal experiences and environment.
    But, no person who is honest about their changing world is gonna decide to shut themselves out and say: perhaps its time we stopped listening to them. The danger here lies not in shutting out people, but rather shutting out oneself.
    A civil society depends on people being open to others thoughts, experiences and ideas. Every person should have that right, even those we believe are our enemies.
    Morality is not a fixed formula that is passed down, unchanged, by our elders. It is founded on principles that depend upon the values of an ever-changing society. Our morals change day to day, based on new findings, experiences, and discoveries.
    But, if we decide to tune out certain voices, then we imperil ourselves in making important decisions in life.

  4. “…Our morals change day to day, based on new findings, experiences, and discoveries…”
    WRONG. That ideology of relative morality, is the mask that’s currently being employed by the enemies of the West in their efforts to destroy its societies foundations under the guise of being “open minded”, it might work with useful idiots, but not with those of us who are willing to stand for the values that we know are right and correct, you’ve just indicated that you DON’T HAVE any morals, that includes not even having the moral courage, a.k.a. testicular fortitude, to not post anonymously.

  6. Well said, now maybe you actually CAN stop listening to them and complaining about the things they say about you. Because I think you’ve said you’re gonna ignore them before and have yet to succeed.

  7. Perhaps you are right, but I was also taught that when you are attacked it should not go unanswered. I was taught to stand up for what I believe in. So by exposing their hypocrisy and their bigotry we are gaining some allies and exposing the enemies.

  8. The problem is that these people do not believe in absolutes. To them, there is no good and evil. To them, it’s all relative, and that means that they will justify any perverted viewpoint it fit their twisted model of the world. I think they’re called LIBERALS!

  10. Henry, it sounds like one of ‘them’ has popped in here:

    But if you examine the history of mankind, and our varying cultural values from it, you’ll notice that no one has a monopoly over morality, or what we view as right or wrong.

    That no-one has a monopoly on morality doesn’t mean that everyone is equally moral. No culture is perfect but some are more moral and civilized than others. The logic implicit in your statement is equivalent to saying that because no-one got an A+ on their math test, everyone flunked.

    So how do we make sense of the world?

    If you cast yourself adrift and float away on the currents of moral relativism, you can’t.

    We talk to each other, share ideas and experiences, read the paper, we have discussions, or debate. This is how we inform ourselves about how to proceed day to day.

    That’s how you find out what’s popular, not what’s right.

    There’s also what some scientists call our “moral intuitions.” These intuitions guide us as well, but they are also influenced by our personal experiences and environment.

    These intuitions are the law of God, which is written on every man’s heart. Without it, you do not have right and wrong, only opinions of the moment. Any moral code must be transcendent or it is a joke, just leaves blown away by the hurricane of popular sentiment.

    But, no person who is honest about their changing world is gonna decide to shut themselves out and say: perhaps its time we stopped listening to them. The danger here lies not in shutting out people, but rather shutting out oneself.

    No man with any sense at all is going to continue to listen to someone who is consistently wrong. To listen to fools and proclaim them wise because they are occasionally right in the same way a broken clock is right twice a day — and therefore everyone’s wisdom is equal and everyone should be listened to equally — is to become a fool. Relativism means erasing the line between wisdom and idiocy.

    A civil society depends on people being open to others thoughts, experiences and ideas. Every person should have that right, even those we believe are our enemies.

    More marshmallow, candy-assed relativism guaranteed to get us all killed. Our enemies are really our friends and our friends are really our enemies. If only Roosevelt and Churchill would have hugged Hitler and gushed over his prose in Mein Kampf! He would have dropped that whole master race thing and become an interior decorator, flitting and flouncing about the German countryside with singing birds following him everywhere… But Roosevelt and Churchill didn’t do that so they are the “real enemies”.

    Appeasement kills. It is responsible for more deaths than any dictator. Appeasers and relativists believe there is nothing you can’t talk your way out of, that you never have to actually fight. They believe so much in the power of yakkity-yak that they think you can even reason with a tornado and so they try to coax as many people back out of the storm cellar as they can as the twister approaches, your post being a prime example.

    Morality is not a fixed formula that is passed down, unchanged, by our elders. It is founded on principles that depend upon the values of an ever-changing society. Our morals change day to day, based on new findings, experiences, and discoveries.

    Contradictory gobbledygook. You can’t found anything on something that’s ever-changing. That makes about as much sense as a drifting anchor.

    You confuse the practical specifics of a local moral code with the principles behind them. In America we don’t take off our shoes before we enter someone’s house. In Korea and Japan, they do. It is not immoral for me to leave my shoes on when I go in a fellow American’s house. But it is if I leave my shoes on when entering the house of a Korean immigrant. To moral relativists, this is proof that morality is not universal. But the moral principle in this case is not what you should do with your shoes on entering a house but avoiding offending your host. That’s about as universal as it gets.

    But, if we decide to tune out certain voices, then we imperil ourselves in making important decisions in life.

    First, what certain voices are you talking about? Castro? Osama bin Laden?

    Second, we are in far greater peril if we don’t tune out voices that consistently spout nonsense.

  11. The problem is that these people do not believe in absolutes. To them, there is no good and evil. To them, it’s all relative, and that means that they will justify any perverted viewpoint it fit their twisted model of the world. I think they’re called LIBERALS!

    This isn’t entirely true. They turn into out and out Puritans when it comes to their political opponents. This how they can claim there isn’t really any good and evil and then declare American involvement in Vietnam or Iraq immoral.

  12. Hmm, I never said that one has to accept anyone’s shit, or compromise their principles. But, rather encourage a place where everyone has a say because new ideas are important. That doesn’t mean you are being forced to change your mind against your will. It means that you are placing trust in a forum where new ideas and discoveries are presented, and can change your own mind when you wish.
    About absolutes, there’s interesting findings in the field called moral psychology that proposes foundations of human moral intuitions. Scientist Mark Hauser calls it the “moral organ” and Jonathan Haidt argues that there are five basic moral domains. Maybe there are absolute moral foundations inside humans, but they do not exist alone in the world, but rather depend on humans who interact and create new experiences.
    Our morals are still fluid and reflexive because the world constantly changes. Through the rituals of the old world, the barbarity of the middle ages, and to the slavery in the new world. Our sense of right and wrong has gone though some amazing changes.
    And, it’s doubtful that this development has stopped. But, that doesn’t mean there’s no right and wrong. It means we need to have a civil society, where we debate, discuss and most of all listen to each other. That’s how we know right from wrong.

  13. Hmm, I never said that one has to accept anyone’s shit, or compromise their principles.

    But don’t you have to compromise your principles eventually if morals are fluid and ever-changing?

    But, rather encourage a place where everyone has a say because new ideas are important. That doesn’t mean you are being forced to change your mind against your will. It means that you are placing trust in a forum where new ideas and discoveries are presented, and can change your own mind when you wish.

    We have freedom of speech here, so that place already exists from sea to shining sea. You seem to be confusing my point with censorship. I have no problem with anyone taking a soapbox to the town square and extolling the virtues of tinfoil hats, or touting stocks when he’s been shown to be right about 0.0001% of the time.

    I’m just saying that life is short — my time is limited and I can’t listen to everybody, so I have to tune somebody out. So it makes zero sense to give equal parts of my time to proven fools and proven sages. If I’m looking for water, it’s just plain dumb to give the desert equal time.

    Maybe there are absolute moral foundations inside humans, but they do not exist alone in the world, but rather depend on humans who interact and create new experiences.

    This is essentially my point when I argue that there is no such thing as individual morality because morality is about how you deal with others. But interacting with others doesn’t mean morality is relative. Regarding specific behavior, sure, context is king, as in my example of whether to remove your shoes on entering someone’s house. But again, the moral principle is absolute.

    Our morals are still fluid and reflexive because the world constantly changes. Through the rituals of the old world, the barbarity of the middle ages, and to the slavery in the new world. Our sense of right and wrong has gone though some amazing changes.

    Again you’re confusing specifics of behavior with moral principles. Look for the moral principles behind the surface behaviors and you will see that not much has changed at all.

    And besides, most of the world is every bit as barbaric as it was a thousand years ago. Then as now, there were islands of civilization in a sea of barbarity. And now as then, there is still slavery, both in the traditional form (Sudan) and just about everywhere else under a new name: human trafficking. And mass slaughter — Rwanda and Darfur and anywhere the Islamofascists or other terrorists decide to set off a bomb, or wherever a dictator decides it’s time for a purge. Or at a high school where kids get their values from MTV and other sources of postmodern nihilism and decide to take revenge. The list goes on…

    And, it’s doubtful that this development has stopped. But, that doesn’t mean there’s no right and wrong. It means we need to have a civil society, where we debate, discuss and most of all listen to each other. That’s how we know right from wrong.

    Again that is how we know moral fads and trends, not what’s actually right or wrong.

    You also had a phrase that I found disturbing, “those we believe to be our enemies”. You have to understand that in the context of a site like this which deals with a real live intransigent enemy of freedom civilization, that sounds like a veiled apologism for Castro, Che & Co. If that’s not how it was intended, then never mind. But if it is, I’m calling you out on it right now.

  14. Zhangliqun,
    Thanks for your comments, I think there’s potential for a constructive exchange here. My last post was actually aimed at Henry Gomez, but allow me to respond to your criticisms. From the top:
    You began by referring to me as “one of them.” This obviously points to certain assumptions that have not been revealed yet in the discussion. But, most likely belong to a political assumption held under a left/right spectrum of thought. The other assumption may concern what you refer to as the “law of God.” Hopefully you can reveal what these assumptions are, and how they are relevant to the discussion. After which I think our exchange can proceed better than before.
    Allow me now to reveal my personal position and the assumptions I am arguing for. I am not speaking of philosophical or ethical relativism. I am speaking of a moral system based on recent scientific findings, especially from the field of cognitive psychology and neuro-psychology. Scientist like those I have mentioned, Hauser and Haidt, are just a few who have contributed to new discoveries that begin to explain possible biological foundations of human morality. These new findings are still controversial, but are developing at a drastic pace, especially through new technology that helps examine the human brain.
    My argument assumes that every human person begins with a moral system that operates on very basic principles. Through the years, a person’s experiences and surroundings contribute to further development of this moral system, which eventually accommodates itself into practical application in a particular society. That doesn’t mean that those initial principles are gone, but instead thrive based on creative input. Some of these principles are also called moral truisms which we find throughout societies.
    Now, I’m not arguing for relativism. Never did. Neither do I argue with opposites, meaning that if no one has a monopoly on morality, thus everyone is equal. On the contrary, I argue that our morals are complex and dependent on several socio-cultural systems, and have unique consequences and solutions. Neither am I talking about ethics, such as your reference to taking off one’s shoes in the cultural context.
    Obviously, I can’t address every point you mentioned, so I will address those I see as important.
    1) The world IS NOT “every bit as barbaric as it was a thousand years ago.” Important organizations like the World Bank and the IMF have shown that, while some rates fluctuate, World poverty is decreasing. Health organizations show that people are living longer. Research also shows that international armed conflicts have also decrease significantly since WWII. You may feel that it is as barbaric, but that’s also because we have the technology of viewing much more of the world today than before.
    Does this say anything about our moral system? Maybe it does. Take a look at what’s happening in Burma. There’s condemnation for the Burmese military from many parts of the world. Tomorrow has been designated as a day of WORLDWIDE protest against the Burmese oppression. That’s quite positive for our morality.
    2) My argument of a civil society, or public sphere, where a community exercises debate, discussion and argumentation, is not based on a contradictory premise. As I mentioned before, my assumption lies in an innate moral system that depends on personal experience and interaction to develop into a practical moral system within a given environment. Research on this points to studies of children’s development and how they handle particular social dilemmas. Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist, has pointed to five moral domains that he believes are quite universal, and may point to basic moral principles that children operate under. I’m not arguing that we are building on something that is in flux, but rather that human morals grow and develop in creative ways throughout life, and continues to be shaped throughout history.
    3) Neither am I suggesting that someone argue with a rock. Debate and argumentation is based on reciprocal exchanges of ideas that are supported by facts and evidence. To settle on a conclusion, one requires a certain level of trust in a process of investigation and inquiry which provide reliable results. All this is presented in an argument. If it isn’t then we are free to find those sources else where, but we depend on such right of expression to formulate our own thoughts. There is peril in shutting oneself out of that process. I’m not saying you must force yourself, or compromise, to endure an entire Fidel Castro speech, rather to have it accessible in case an important fact arises from it, and to be accessed on your own time. I’m not arguing for “equal time” either, but instead for “equal space.”
    4) Finally, your comments also mention those who are “consistently wrong” or those who “consistently spout nonsense.” That’s fine. But, nevertheless, we depend on a civil society that presents all kinds of arguments, otherwise we may tune out the nonsense of a Galileo, Copernicus, Luther or Lincoln. How about the nonsense of Oswaldo Paya, Aung Saan Suu Kyi in Burma, or Anna Politkovskaya in Russia (RIP).
    By turning our shoulders to “one of them”, or tuning “them” out, we run a great risk. Doesn’t mean we should tolerate hate speech, but neither does it mean we should banish it. A space where all discussion, debate and argumentation is welcomed not only allows us come to our own conclusions, it allows us to share experiences which help us develop our moral instincts. In the process we also settle differences, and prevent inhibitions that lead to hate and violence.
    All this is important.

  15. Bravo!
    But not on this blog. This blog is not a forum for scholarly discourse and a respectful exchange of opposing ideas. This blog is a podium. Someone’s house, as we’ve been reminded repeatedly over the years. I accept it as such and in a way hope it remains that way – one of many blogs with intransigent points of view.
    As long as there are other blogs just a click away – all will be well.
    God Bless America!

  16. You began by referring to me as “one of them.” This obviously points to certain assumptions that have not been revealed yet in the discussion. But, most likely belong to a political assumption held under a left/right spectrum of thought.

    What else is there, politically speaking? There are gradations of right and left, sure, but everyone believes in an ideal size of government and thus all fall somewhere on that spectrum, and stuff like “those we believe to be our enemies” is the crap we get from Castro apologists and other lefties all day long. But fine, I’ll stipulate for the sake of argument that you are somehow above the fray. But hopefully you’ll eventually lay all your cards on the table as I have done.

    The other assumption may concern what you refer to as the “law of God.” Hopefully you can reveal what these assumptions are, and how they are relevant to the discussion.

    I very much believe in the God of the Bible (that law) and his existence is crucial to any meaningful discussion of morality. Why? Dennis Prager said it best: “Only if there is a God who created man is man worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed.” No God means no morality or meaning. Sure, we can pretend life has meaning, or that there are such things as morality and meaning but it’s nothing but an arbitrary head trip that does nothing to change the reality of futility outside our heads. We still die and the good are not rewarded and the evil are not punished, everyone instead has the same fate of being converted back to dust. We can pretend that we can somehow extract or create meaning from a meaningless universe, but that’s like trying to get fresh fruit from a dead tree. At the end of the day, if one believes there is no God, then one believes only in accidents and atoms.

    I am not speaking of philosophical or ethical relativism. I am speaking of a moral system based on recent scientific findings, especially from the field of cognitive psychology and neuro-psychology. Scientist like those I have mentioned, Hauser and Haidt, are just a few who have contributed to new discoveries that begin to explain possible biological foundations of human morality. These new findings are still controversial, but are developing at a drastic pace, especially through new technology that helps examine the human brain.

    All very interesting, but again meaningless if there is no God. Just more rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. (On the other hand, this research may eventually contribute to arguments in favor of God’s existence.)

    My argument assumes that every human person begins with a moral system that operates on very basic principles. Through the years, a person’s experiences and surroundings contribute to further development of this moral system, which eventually accommodates itself into practical application in a particular society. That doesn’t mean that those initial principles are gone, but instead thrive based on creative input. Some of these principles are also called moral truisms which we find throughout societies.

    On that we agree, I think. The moral perception of an adult is more “nuanced”, to use a word I hate, than a 5-year old as he is forced to deal with ever more complex moral situations and even dilemmas. But as you say, the principles remain the same.

    The world IS NOT “every bit as barbaric as it was a thousand years ago.” Important organizations like the World Bank and the IMF have shown that, while some rates fluctuate, World poverty is decreasing.

    Poverty has very little to do with barbarism. There are and always have been plenty of poor people who know right from wrong and act accordingly. There are and always have been plenty of rich people who didn’t. Osama bin Laden and the majority of Islamofascist terror group leaders are very wealthy, as are the ever more decadent and out of control Hollywood celebrities.

    Health organizations show that people are living longer.

    You seem to be confusing state of health and wealth with barbarism, which as I understand it, is about behavior. The Barbarians themselves had wealthy kings who lived to ripe old ages who ordered them to do the kind of thing that were named after them.

    Research also shows that international armed conflicts have also decrease significantly since WWII.

    First, the reason international conflicts have decreased since WW2 is not because of an increased moral awareness but because of the invention, and thus fear, of nuclear weapons. Second, internal repression and oppression increased a great deal since WW2 to make up for it, in places like Burma and China and Cuba and the Eastern bloc. Russia had a brief moment of sunlight but is now sliding back into Stalinism. Domestic slaughter has replaced international slaughter. It’s a wash at best.

    You may feel that it is as barbaric, but that’s also because we have the technology of viewing much more of the world today than before. Take a look at what’s happening in Burma. There’s condemnation for the Burmese military from many parts of the world. Tomorrow has been designated as a day of WORLDWIDE protest against the Burmese oppression. That’s quite positive for our morality.

    To me, that’s an argument that we’re even MORE barbaric today. Do you think these protests are going to have any effect at all on the Burmese government? Nothing will change in Burma until the regime is removed from power. This is all typical of the UN mentality where the strongest measure the UN ever takes on any such issue is to call a closed door meeting for several weeks and then issue a “statement of concern”. In theory the UN has such power to do so much good, but instead it chooses to populate its human rights councils with countries that don’t even recognize human rights. It makes excuses to do nothing about Darfur or Rwanda or Iran’s nuke-Israel program and eagerly participated in the Oil For Food scandal, and saves all its rage and hue and cry for America and Israel. It sends “peacekeeping” troops to places where they end up raping underage girls and does nothing about it.

    The UN stares all of these horrors directly in the face with the aid of the very communication technology you mention and not only does the UN (and everyone but America) refuse to do anything about them, it frequently covers them up. All of this is aided and abetted by the zeitgeist of postmodernism, relativism and multiculturalism. That makes the world even more barbaric to me than it was a thousand years ago — because back then very few people had any idea what was going on even 50 miles away, never mind the other side of the world and so could not be held accountable for explaining away the barbaric acts they didn’t to do anything about.

    Finally, your comments also mention those who are “consistently wrong” or those who “consistently spout nonsense.” That’s fine. But, nevertheless, we depend on a civil society that presents all kinds of arguments, otherwise we may tune out the nonsense of a Galileo, Copernicus, Luther or Lincoln. How about the nonsense of Oswaldo Paya, Aung Saan Suu Kyi in Burma, or Anna Politkovskaya in Russia (RIP).

    The above seems to imply that we would have a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between the views of Ms. Politkovskaya and Mr. Castro without listening to each make their respective cases for hours on end. It would be pretty simple for me: Do you believe in democracy and freedom? Ms. Politkovskaya? “Yes.” Mr. Castro? “Weeeell…” The End.

    By turning our shoulders to “one of them”, or tuning “them” out, we run a great risk. Doesn’t mean we should tolerate hate speech, but neither does it mean we should banish it. A space where all discussion, debate and argumentation is welcomed not only allows us come to our own conclusions, it allows us to share experiences which help us develop our moral instincts. In the process we also settle differences, and prevent inhibitions that lead to hate and violence.
    All this is important.

    As I said before, the space for discussion/debate is already here in abundance and it extends from sea to shining sea. It’s called America. I’m not for banishing speech, but I am for the equal freedom I have of tuning out proven idiots and mass-murdering tyrants. Like you, I prefer to have folks like Castro and Hitler and Mao spill their guts so everybody knows what they are about. But once their beliefs and intentions are clear, I see no need to go out of our way to continue to give them space to indoctrinate the weak-minded among us. Failure to sooner or later turn our shoulders away from charismatic demagogues and tyrants leads to the likes of North Korea and Libya getting seats on the UN Human Rights Council and the UN turning its shoulders away from Darfur and Rwanda. It is possible to be so open-minded that you invite the fox into the henhouse, a perfect description of the UN. Either that or Sgt. Schultz…

  18. Henry, step aside and let people debate (maybe you’ll learn something).
    Zhangliqun,
    I enjoyed the debate here, so let me wrap it up (before I get deleted) and make a final rebuttal and comment.
    I NEVER argued that “we would have a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between the views of Ms. Politkovskaya and Mr. Castro,” but rather argued that each deserve an equal space (not time) within a civil society for the very reason (purpose) that you eventually adopted: “to have folks like Castro and Hitler and Mao spill their guts so everybody knows what they are about.”
    Meaning, our right to find out the differences in each person’s argument (perhaps their intentions), so WE can make up our OWN minds. Such a position overrides the totalitarian efforts of a Fidel Castro, or a Burmese junta, where there’s a forced systematic control of the public sphere.
    If we support equal space for a Marta Beatriz Roque or Robert Mugabe, then we allow people to tune out whomever they wish, and not by force. Thus, I’m NOT arguing for FORCED indoctrination. I’m arguing that we consider and choose (if we want) the benefits of a universal principle: equal space for every voice that wishes to be heard.
    You also said: “I am for the equal freedom I have of tuning out proven idiots and mass-murdering tyrants.” Fine, I NEVER argued against your freedoms to do so. But, you must have arrived to such a position AFTER having heard those particular arguments which you can confidently deride. How else must you have come to such conclusions, if not for a free and open society?
    Tuning out someone at your own personal risk is acceptable, but its a far more dangerous thing when its systematically applied. The fine line comes when a position of “tuning out” someone becomes systematic policy. In which case, many people shall suffer. The moral question here depends on such an open and civil society which we should seriously consider and perhaps personally adopt, so we can choose our own path in life. And not have it forced on us.
    Till next time.

  20. I NEVER argued that “we would have a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between the views of Ms. Politkovskaya and Mr. Castro,” but rather argued that each deserve an equal space (not time) within a civil society…

    Equal space pretty much does mean equal time. If you have space to speak but no-one takes the time to listen, the space is academic. I’m also having a hard time understanding what exactly you mean by “space”. Do you mean individuals just giving space in our own minds, blogs, time, etc.? Or are you proposing something more external and formal paid for by the government?

    …for the very reason (purpose) that you eventually adopted: “to have folks like Castro and Hitler and Mao spill their guts so everybody knows what they are about.”

    It’s not a position I eventually adopted over the course of this discussion. I had it long ago. But the point is that the positions of Castro, Hitler, Mao et al, are already and have long since been abundantly clear. Far more importantly than that, how we learned what they really believed and what their real intentions were came far less from anything they said or wrote for public consumption than from what they did. This is because folks like them have a vested interest in NOT laying all their cards on the table until it’s too late to stop them. Thus giving them space to speak wouldn’t have furthered any scholarly debate, it would have been just a venue for disinformation and recruiting of the ignorant.

    Meaning, our right to find out the differences in each person’s argument (perhaps their intentions), so WE can make up our OWN minds. Such a position overrides the totalitarian efforts of a Fidel Castro, or a Burmese junta, where there’s a forced systematic control of the public sphere.

    Okay, enough with the tap dancing lay your cards on the table as I have mine — and as has this blog from the beginning. Who do you want to be heard in here who isn’t being heard? Castro? Are his views in any way unclear at this point? Truth is he does get heard in here a lot via his “editorials” and speeches, possibly posthumously at this point, which we freely admit that we gleefully rip. If not Castro, then who? Vague generalities aren’t going to cut it. You wouldn’t have even bothered to come in here if you didn’t have some particular voice in mind. Who is it/are they? Spell it out or be gone.

    You also said: “I am for the equal freedom I have of tuning out proven idiots and mass-murdering tyrants.” Fine, I NEVER argued against your freedoms to do so. But, you must have arrived to such a position AFTER having heard those particular arguments which you can confidently deride.

    Again, I arrived at my position based primarily on what they did, because it bore very little resemblance to what they said. You’re assuming that everyone who comes to the table will be open and transparent. They won’t. Castro was preaching all sweetness and light from the beginning to this day. I would have learned nothing about who he was by listening to him, but in weaker days and moments, I might have been swayed enough by him to become one of his henchmen or apologists.

    How else must you have come to such conclusions, if not for a free and open society?

    Which is already in place, which leads me to ask again what more are you asking for?

    Tuning out someone at your own personal risk is acceptable, but its a far more dangerous thing when its systematically applied. The fine line comes when a position of “tuning out” someone becomes systematic policy. In which case, many people shall suffer. The moral question here depends on such an open and civil society which we should seriously consider and perhaps personally adopt, so we can choose our own path in life. And not have it forced on us.

    Maybe I get what you’re asking for now. You want this blog to become essentially neutral and post essays or blurbs from contributors who are pro-Castro or at least anti-embargo. And you believe this blog, by failing to do so, is a dangerous step toward our government forcing a systematic policy of silencing dissenters.

    If that is an accurate assessment of your position, then I have heard your arguments for it and found it to be so far fetched that you have now been inducted into the Royal Order of the Tin Foil Hat and I am now tuning you out. If that is not your position, then please say very very specifically what it is you want from this blog. No more vague generalities about space and open society (which, again, are already here in America in abundance) — spell it out or beat it!

Comments are closed.