From: Van oost Kenneth (kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:42:00 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
Kenneth,
> > History prooved us right, no doubt about it, but in the case of Nazism
> > the enslavement of the German people prooved to be a freedom and
> > choise- stance_ for the ( most of the) German people at that time !
> > Don 't get me wrong Joe, I ain 't keen on Stalin and Pol Pot either,
> > but all positive characteristics of the term tolerance reflects our
> > point of view not theirs, and I think that this deserves attention.
Joe,
> The points of view of the soulless butchers of millions deserve our
> attention????? I fear that with this contention you have traveled
> quantums beyond the pale, and I fail to see how you can find your way
> back to rationality and reason.
This seems to be somewhat a point of misunderstanding between the two
of us, Joe !
In the context of the term, in the semantic of the term itself, tolerance is
a passive conception. It demands a meek, passive attitude under which
we go the facts. Tolerance is here the opposite of a ' will to change '.
The facts we endure, but we do nothing wha could change the status
quo.
In the context of Stalin and Pol Pot we ' tolerate ' their ways by which
they lead their country. We are, as individuals and I soley concentrate
on those, to little to do anything about the situation_ we can only pressure
our own government. If our voices aren t heard.....
That is OUR pasitive attitude towards another country its home affairs_
like many now argue in the context of Irak.
What we don 't tolerate on the other hand is indeed the ways those
guys behave(d). Tolerance can thus in certain circumstances be
abolished.
But whatever the reason ( did we tolerate Stalins and Pol Pot's
behavior in those times !?) we didn 't do nothing in the given time
to get rid of those killers, did we !?
No we made ' peace ' with the first ( self- interest no doubt) and
the second was finally defeated after a long, long war ( but was
he killed, no lived on...) Were we involved in that battle !?
The attention I talk about is that we ought to look at whatever
the reason was for those butchers their behavior to comprehend
what happened and to avoid repetition.
Whatever their reason was_ a rational ( in their mind) was present
( whatever that could be), if we think that we have something to
say, something to add, we're in the ' wrong ' !
Don 't get ME wrong, but IMO, we look at the problematic with
our own eyes, the eyes of the beholder and we look in only one
direction_ OURS !
This is a rhetoric movement we make by which we automatically
condems the ' victim '.
Don 't say we shouldn 't and should, though !
Is this clearer !?
I have it here soley about the used terminology, not what its holds
within....
Many regards though,
Kenneth
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:23:41 GMT