Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: offensiveness

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Wil, You are never offensive, but implacably naive, and will, of course, make your assessment about me accordingly, on the basis of my remarks. The fault of
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      You are never offensive, but implacably naive, and will, of course,
      make your assessment about me accordingly, on the basis of my
      remarks. The fault of my politeness lies in answering the questions
      of those who are ideologically immunised against open argument (as
      well as in not being rude to those who were cruelly rude to me). I
      am not and never was your 'sister'. If you could only see me as a
      fellow-human being, instead of someone you must strive to raise to
      your own level of enlightenment, I might find the strength to believe
      the ideological difference could be transcended.

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Louise,
      >
      > "I'm now finding this discussion about race rather silly and
      > unphilosophical."
      >
      > Response: This is the knee jerk retort that I spoke about before,
      in case you
      > were wondering.
      > ---
      > "It starts from the wrong kind of base. After all, the respect for
      persons
      > which is mooted should be extended to everyone from the outset,
      including to
      > scientists who are not currently permitted to put their findings in
      the public
      > domain."
      >
      > Response: Science journals, like Nature, vet all papers before
      publication.
      > If a racist paper does not pass muster, that is not due to its
      being
      > 'poltically incorrect', but is rather due to its demonstration not
      being up to the
      > common standards of science. But these 'others' can and do publish
      their ideas
      > elsewhere.
      > ---
      > "If any Tom, Dick or Harry can pontificate about "racism", whilst
      the
      > evidence is rigorously suppressed, all we do is argue about
      history, not ideas."
      >
      > Response: Do you have evidence of a suppressed paper? How did you
      come by it?
      > Can I see it?
      >
      > You write in a recent response to Tom, "I am arguing that before
      one proceeds
      > to question whether there are measurable differences between races,
      one
      > should ascertain the meaning of human equality. It is a spiritual
      or philosophical
      > reality, not necessarily a scientific one. The divorce of science
      from a
      > feeling for the sacredness of life is at the root of our modern
      malaise."
      >
      > Ah, I see, science should consult the pet peeves of the bigots
      outside the
      > door before making categorical statements as to the equality of the
      species. And
      > thus you show yourself to be just another ideologue yourself. All
      along you
      > wanted to maintain some hierarchy of dermal colors. I assume that
      the long
      > admired San Trope tan is down on your list. I am rather partial to
      the Creole,
      > even though I am, myself, pale as a ghost.
      > ---
      > "... Contrary to what Wil so blithely seems to presume, I am not
      agitating
      > for a mono-ethnic society."
      >
      > Response: I did not say that you are agitating for this, but merely
      that such
      > ideas have been brought up, by you, as surrounding the matter.
      Consider post
      > 44931, "My willingness to listen to those who advocate repatriation
      on grounds
      > of race, and to indicate my support for their endeavours peaceably
      to obtain
      > freedom of speech, is not at all to say that I personally advocate
      > repatriation. I understand their arguments to be based on the
      belief that only by
      > securing homelands exclusively for Aryan peoples may the survival
      of the race be
      > assured."
      > --
      > "In other words, I am far too damn polite."
      >
      > Response: Bring it on, sister.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      > In a message dated 12/7/08 11:10:17 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
      >
      >
      > > I'm rather in favour of trying to discern the truth. Having no
      wish to
      > > be 'sensitive' if someone is trying to attack a loved one,
      including
      > > any assault on my native land, and on my own feeling of being a
      link in
      > > an ancestral chain. It's still, however, difficult to rely on any
      > > simple concept of an 'enemy'. Not that I consider that a bad
      thing,
      > > since I am not persuaded that personal or ethnic hatred makes any
      > > sense. Contrary to what Wil so blithely seems to presume, I am not
      > > agitating for a mono-ethnic society. I am pointing out the
      universal
      > > capacity in mankind for brutality, under whatever banner. It is
      > > perfectly possible to kill large numbers of people in the name
      > > of 'brotherhood' of 'brotherhood'<wbr>, and it has been done,
      surely, a
      > > twentieth century alone. I think that fateful goddess of
      infatuation,
      > > which so hampered Agamemnon, has also at times robbed me of my
      wits, in
      > > the tolerance I have shown to argument at the list for bloody
      > > ideology. In other words, I am far too damn polite.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > **************
      > Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo,
      > Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com.
      > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-
      dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000012)
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.