carlw wrote:
>
> Ummm, did the alliteration not indicate to you that the observations were
> made with my lingualis hard against my Buccinator? As it is, your reply
> certainly opens up some interesting lines of thought.
>
> As I have suggested before on this list, I find the "golden rule" a
> perfectly adequate basis for an ethical system, so IMO preach on (and as the
> Wiccan's might say) "and you (will) do no harm".
>
> It is only worthwhile listening rather than speaking only so long as the
> speaker is making sense, especially in an environment where potentially
> susceptible people are present. I rather think that the relatively few
> rational people in the world owe a duty to themselves and their descendants
> to attempt to promote rationality in the face of unreason. The forces of
> "faith" may not be particularly knowledgeable, persuasive or literate, but
> they are strong in numbers and the underlying idea pushed by most belief
> systems, that its members can "have it all" without needing to work is a
> strong attractor to the demagogue. After all, the purveyors of this claptrap
> are quite secure from ever having to deliver on "richness in heaven". All
> that rationality offers is that if you work hard and think carefully, that
> you could have a lot of fun, may make some money in the here and now, and
> that other rational people will possibly respect you.
>
> In this forum, there are a number of vociferous people who seem to me to be
> attempting to convey the impression of being "elder members". In my opinion,
> if one is in an environment such as this, and one does not speak up when
> these wanna-be-leaders talk nonsense, if one then remains silent, then one
> conveys a sense of undeserved countenance, approbation and justification to
> these willful proponents of nonsense. While I am attempting to decide
> whether to remain on this list or to leave, I am making sure that my
> position remains clear. Approval (even passive approval) of people who
> attempt to use reason to attack reason and cannot see or will not
> acknowledge the impossibility of their position, is the last thing I intend.
> If as you seem to imply, this position is a sham, then it is the most
> obscenely malevolent unethical display I have ever had the misfortune to
> observe. Fascinating though it may be, it is like watching a snake playing
> with a young bird.
>
What's your problem, Hermit? Is this an appeal to reason or just a way to glorify your personal hang-ups?
-- Bad taste makes the day go by faster. Andy Warhol