On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Charles J. Reid wrote:
> Well, Arthur, I posted my disagreement with your position in a previous
> post. We've talked about Justice for 2300 years since Plato, too. Wanting
> to escape a relevant discussion does not seem to me to be a good
> motivation for your decison, one essentially advoating censorship and
> "political correctness." [I really would like to understand minds that
> think this way, but I'm sure I never will.]
>
> My ultimate conclusion is: if we are going to talk about the future, and
> how we are going to move in a direction of greater justice for all the
> worlds peoples, we need to be inclusive, and allow everyone to
> participate in the discussion. It's very tedious, I know, especially in
> light of the agitation of late-comers to the forum (which, while I don't
> post too much, I've belonged to for 2 years).
>
> Let me urge you to end the requirement of intellectual conformity to
> participate on this forum. We'll all be better off for it in the long
> run.
>
> -- CJR
Not pressing for intellectual conformity or whatever. But I do
suggest that those who want to explore the various isms in some depth do
so as a side discussion.
Have you ever been in a large conversation where the thread keeps
changing, but is more or less on point. A side conversation springs up in
the corner. The participants think it so important that they want
everyone in the room to participate in the new thread. Some do, some
don't. Some are too polite to say anything.
I suggest that those who are off to the side looking at isms and
justice continue to do so--but as a side conversation. Not being
politically correct, just not interested. thanx
arthur cordell
