From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 14 2005 - 19:24:48 BST
Hi Horse,
P previously
> > How do you know what's good for your neighbor? I hope you don't believe
> > that everything you think is good is necessarily good for everybody.
H
> Well, one possibility is to ask him I suppose.
> But your statement seems to imply that any action I take should be mediated
> by social value rather than intellectual value (or DQ). By acting locally
> one can persuade and build concensus and not just impose it on others.
I'm all for persuasion and consensus building. I think that's called
democracy.
> Within the UK both the NHS and the minimum wage have been (and continue to
> be) parts of the Blair/Labour election manifesto. I think both are a good
> thing and by inference so do many others (the majority who voted). I'm not
> saying they're perfect but they are the preference of the majority of those
> who voted. Most people over here are in favour of the NHS in general
> (despite it's flaws) and support a national minimum wage. Where's the
> problem. If your lot don't want it and vote against it that's your
> prerogative.
No problem. I just offered my opinion. If put to a vote here I'd vote
against the minimum wage and NHS.
P previously
> > What a way to live, thinking you know what's best for everybody else. And
> > "dynamic" doesn't ipso facto mean "good." Terrorists are dynamic.
H
> I thought you said they were germs and should be exterminated. Are you now
> saying that what's dynamic should be exterminated?
You seem to assume all change is for the better. But, as Pirsig points
out, change can be degenerate.
> Where have I said or
> inferred or implied that what I think is best for everyone? My point above
> was that the 'law' of unintended consequences outlined by the article is an
> excuse for not upsetting the status quo. You didn't answer this point but
> accused me, incorrectly, of thinking I know whats good for others.
Then I apologize. As for the law of unintended consequences, it simply
reminds us that we're all fallible -- something activists seem oblivious
of.
> It's my belief that this is why the Inquisition did what they did. I
> haven't said that this is the only possible interpretation only that your
> interpretation is naïve. I haven't said that your interpretation is not
> allowed - just naïve. The mindset of the left can spot a naïve
> interpretation when it sees one.
Well I think your interpretation is naive. So there.
> As to multiculturalism. the UK population,
> for the most part, is quite happy with it - it appears to be Blair that is
> out of touch with the way the electorate thinks. Perhaps we're not as
> parochial as some other nations or perhaps it's the sense of fairness that
> Pirsig mentioned that's the cause of this.
From what I read in leftist papers like the NY Times, multiculturism is
being rethought throughout Europe in the wake of the large unassimilated
Muslim populations..
> Talking of twisting, where have I said that what I think should be imposed
> on others?
Don't you support large government social programs that impose on others?
If you don't, I take it back.
> My point was that to run someone's ideas down (such as Rigel did
> with Pirsig - I notice you didn't answer that point either) by labelling
> them as 'do-gooders', in a pejorative sense, is an ad hominem attack.
> Elsewhere you've made the point that this is evil. Are you now saying that
> this is OK?
Well, there's plenty of ad hominem attacks, insults and running downs of
someone's ideas going on in the MD. So I think it's a bit unfair to single
me out. But I can take it. :-)
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 14 2005 - 20:23:07 BST