----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: The "problem" with the list.
> >Would you care to amend this bill or pose an alternative one.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> The essence of discussion is disagreement. Without disagreement, there
is
> almost no discussion. If you cannot handle people disagreeing with your
> opinions, then you should not engage in discussion. If you are going to
> take vigorous disagreement with your political opinions personally, then
> you should not engage in discussion. Indeed, if you cannot handle the
> existence of opinions that are the polar opposite of your own, then you
> should strongly consider leaving the body politic, the essence of
> democratic human civilization.
>
> You would seem to think, Michael, the people with vigorous politicial
> disagreements cannot be friends. You seem resigned to that fact that
> vgorous political disagreement will eventual disolve friendship.
>
> I categorically reject that viewpoint in every possible way.
>
I do as well, as I never said any of that. I am not against debate, and I
am not against rational discussion (I have willingly participated in my fair
share of those political debates), I simply said that I think we should
refrain from discussing politics because it makes no progress, and damages
the quality of discussion on the list, driving people away from the list.
> If your viewpoint had any basis in reality, then I would not have a single
> friend, as to this date, I have not met a single person who does not have
a
> vigorous political disagreement with me on one level or another. As it
> is, I count among my best friends those who have the strongest
> disagreements with me, and who continually challenge my mind with new
ideas
> and perspectives.
Again, I never said this.
> In my humble opinion, the greatest danger to human civilization is to
> become too insular and too isolated. I think we all would like, at some
> internal level, to be surrounded by people who think and act like we do.
> Yet, as long as other ideas persist around us, those ideas need to be
> engaged. If we are convinced that our positions represent our best
> conclusions as to "the truth", then we should *want* to share that truth
> with our friends and fellow list-members. Likewise, if we are convinced
> that our positions represent "the truth", then we should have nothing to
> fear from testing them in the fire of critical examination, debate, and
> discussion.
Honestly though, how critical is the examination? How rational is the
debate? I hear the same arguments over and over again, and see the same
rhetoric, twisting of words and placing words in mouths, and other tricks
that have been used previously to try to discredit the other person in the
arguement. Progress is not being made, and people are just getting
aggitated. If nothing else, the political discussion should be stopped for
long enough for both sides to cool down so it can be discussed rationally.
> If we are truly to be A Member Of A Civilization, then it is our
> *obligation* to work towards the continual betterment of that
civilization.
> And how is our Civilization bettered? It is bettered through politics,
> and the political system. If this List is to attract people who take
> IAAMOAC to heart, then it will attract people who consider themselves an
> active member of the body politic - the societal activists and
> intellectuals that are the lifeblood of the republic. These people will
> of course naturally want to discuss the greatest problems facing human
> civilization today - and that discussion will invariably be characterized
> as politics.
My point is that the discussion of politics at this point in time is *not*
making the list better, it is only serving to further divide it. The
difference between your friends and the people on this list is that I am
sure that you and your friends discuss things other than politics the
majority of the time. This is why you still have friends, because you have
a common ground outside politics to join you. The list, however, has
reduced being mostly politics, so if common ground is not disscussed more,
then politics, being the majority, will have the strongest effects of who is
"friend" and who is "enemy".
Please recongize John, that this list is not USA-L, and it is not
Politics-L, it is the Brin-L. Discussion about Brin's books and related
works should be the primary focus, not Politics. My original suggestion to
the list was going to be that we keep political discussion to a minimum, but
that would rely on people to control themselves, and considering how strong
the oppinions on the list are regarding politics, I doubt that that will
happen, so I feel it is best to avoid the topic altogether.
> In my humble opinion, banning political discussion would be completely
> contrary to what Dr. Brin would have liked to see from this list. Thus,
I
> refuse to recognize the validity of this process in any form, either by
> offering amendments, or casting a vote.
>
> JDG
Well, since you have such high respect for democracy, I hope you will
recognize and respect of the final decission made by the list. There is no
law enforcement system here, so we cannot force you to agree with the final
decission (the listowners could probably enforce the decission, but I don't
think that they will), but I hope your respect for the system which made the
decission will influence you to respect the decision.
The Dolphin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
