Actually I agree wholeheartedly.
Bertina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> sorry, but all the "either/or" diatribes in this endless debate bother me.
> the "Rush Limbaugh" technique of ad hominem and "straw-person" arguments never
> really achieves anything meaningful, I have observed. I propose we start
> instead with compassion. This means acknowledging more than has been
> acknowledged thus far in this debate, it means admitting that all the people
> here discussing are trying to do the right thing, as they understand it. I'm
> not saying give up the ghost, at all, but respect for the essential goodness
> of all involved seems a pre-requisite to me for a worthy discussion. My God,
> we've had Hitler, always a bad sign that an argument has become de-centered.
> Could we possibly tone "down" (really "up") the rhetoric to one of universal
> love? the love for the animals we discuss here should also include
> unconditional love for humans, especially those trying to find their path.
> I'm sorry to sound so preachy, but our ability as humans to work together is
> crucial to saving this planet. I don't mind discord; it is productive, but
> name-calling, blaming, etc.--what a failed opportunity! It creates stasis, as
> this argument has shown. The only way out of the stasis is for each group to
> say (and Mean), "I respect who you are and where you are," and then disagree
> with statements and facts, not this endless "you are bad, I am good" stuff
> that I keep reading. If we are going to save the world, we'd better learn how
> right here, right now, and I believe that means an acceptance of the good that
> is in people--recognizing that in their core, people want to do the right
> thing.
> Love, Jane
>
> Love, jane
>
