Northern Zax: Your clan is few Southern Zax: But my tribe is legion On Nov 29, 2007 9:34 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ....
> "Tolerance" is great, wonderful and desirable (in most cases)... but > nobody > that preaches it actually provides pragmatic solutions to the basic > fundamental problem: how does tolerance work when ideals are both opposed > and in direct conflict? Is there really anything that's diametrically opposed that doesn't have at least a bit of the other within? > Tolerance of the type in the essay you link is achievable only as a > partnership: amongst those that agree to disagree. But how can tolerance > be > an answer when a single resource is in play? Single and plural is such a trippy deal- hell, numbers are trippy. Do you have any thought-constructs for demonstration purposes besides the Zaxes? > How can the North-going Zax and the South-going Zax (who meet face to face > > in the Prairie of Prax) be tolerant of one another, without changing their > beliefs, when they are in direct conflict? Even Dr Suess didn't have an > answer for that one. I believe he did have an answer. =] > How does the tolerant mind suggest this is worked out? In the > creation/evolution debate a single resource, our children's education, is > at > play and both sides will only be truly happy if the other loses > completely. I don't think that this is quite the case. (Tolerant mind? Re: Zaxes ;) (Then of course there are the many, many cases where tolerance is a bad > thing. Should I be tolerant of a racist? A pedophile? A homophobe?) > I'm tolerant of all of those in the correct context. There is no real middle-ground, no true opportunity for tolerant compromise: > for one side to "win" the other must "lose". Creationists will not accept > a > compromise where the bible is not literally true and science is taught > with > no biblical veto and evolutionists will not accept a compromise where > evolution is marginalized and bad science is taught. Again, I don't know if these are the right battle-lines. Just putting all the Creationists and Evoutionists into these two groups seems sort of off. The "god in the gaps" is fine, there's plenty of gaps. Heck, science is sorta all about gaps. See, winning and losing, is to a certain extent, perception. I'm not in super-smart mode, but I bet I could come up with an idea or two for- *DUM DUM DUM*- comprimise. =] And get this mind blowing feature- a compromise that doesn't compromise either position! *cough* In my opinion. Anyways, figuring it out is easy. It's the hearding of the cats that's the hard part. Control, see. Hmmm... I know! I could start a religion... ;-) To quote Penn from my link "Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can > keep learning where I'm wrong." But of course, as we see here, with God > (at > least as defined by the Creationists) we can't agree on reality and cannot > > learn where we are wrong. Jesus is just all right with me. :) -- Cheer Up! Things are getting worse at a slower rate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies around the world in government. Find out how and where now http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=finder&productID=1522&loc=en_us Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:247373 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
