On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 06:16:07AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > It's never about whether anything was a good idea or not. I can > engage on that level. But that's not what I hear. It's all about > motives. Motives, motives, motives. It's Saudi money - that's the > most recent one. Or it's oil. Or frat boys, for our distinguished > namesake. What it never is, apparently, is people who honestly > disagree with you. Why is it so hard to accept that other people > might actually have a different vision of how to go about things in > the world?
How far does your tolerance of different viewpoints extend? For example, one could argue that the 9/11 suicide pilots honestly disagree with you -- they had a goal and were trying to achieve it as soldiers in a just war. You can disagree with their choice of methods, but you have to respect their bravery in sacrificing their lives in order to make the world a better place for their people. I'm not equating that idea with anyone or anything, by the way. I'm just asking if your tolerance of honest disagreement is limitless, or if you have some limit, and if so, how and where do you draw the line? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
