Re: Tolerance was Re: Hello !?

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:48:17 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: Sue Blackmore lecture Wednesday 5.15pm London"

    >
    > ----- 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 !?
    >
    No, but I applaud the Vietnamese, who were in a position to do so, for ending that reign of terror.
    >
    > 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
    >
    Yeah, but it has come down, in the final analysis, to a question of relative power. We have helped to rescue the victims of powerful despots where we were in a position to do so (Milosevic, Karadzic), and not done so when we were not in such a position (Stalin, Mao). We are presently in such a position with reference to Saddam Hussein; we are not with reference to Kim Jong Il, and if we wait until Saddam obtains nukes, we will not be in a position to help liberate the Iraqi people any more than we can presently do much for the starving and oppressed North Koreans.
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 - 18:45:09 GMT