A Call for Reason

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?

That can only go so far.

Take the "with us or against us"-attitude of the TNG-Borg. For all the value they have, the aspects which the Federation finds so abhorrent far outweigh them.

IDIC promotes understanding, I agree.
Not necessarily acceptance. Because some things cannot be accepted.

Joe

[Dan Stack]

While some things may not be acceptable, I honestly believe that very little, if any, of the political debates here fall into that category.

I know for example that many has posited some things that you strongly disagree with - for example, the morality of nations and war, the ideas that war is an extension of diplomacy, etc.

Many have also suggested that pre-emption in Iraq, or other places, is the way to go. While this may be disagreeable, is it so worthless as to not even be considered as a point of view.

When a president says that with regard to the war on terrorism, you are with us or against us, specifically stating that he is referring to those states which harbor, aid, or finance terrorists, is that something which is so disagreeable as to have no merit.

Diversity is hard. TNG suggested that even some day the Federation might reach a dialogue with the Borg. DS9 suggested that in some ways the Borg are better than the Federation - at least they tell you they are assimilating you. Diversity is finding something worth listening to in those you hate. Even Hitler was worth listening to. He told the world his exact plans, but no one outside of Germany listened to him. If people had listened to him instead of dismissing him (early) or appeasing him (later), many lives could have been saved. If people in the North or South of the USA had realized how passionately the other side felt about the issue of slavery and the Union, perhaps they would have realized the other side was prepared to go to war (the North didn't really believe the South would secede and the South did not believe the North would really fight them, beyond perhaps a token fight). Stalin practically told the world his plans post-WWII and still the USA was surprised to be in the Cold War. Even the opinions that make you want to vomit are valuable.

I've valued the opinions that disagree most strongly with mine, they make me think about my own views. Usually I still feel the same way, but sometimes they change a little. And other times I understand my viewpoint better as a result of a bright light shining on them.

I believe the diversity in these forums is a good thing.

[Capt.Hunter]

Amen, Dan. While I don't agree with the views of several people on these boards, I will fight to the death for their right to express those views. And yes, any society needs both doves and hawks in order to prosper.

[Dave Biggins]

Well said Dan. Without both a left and right wing, you will only fly in circles.

[Morticutor_UK]

Ugh. Saturday, 9 am. Why am I awake?

Would have answered sooner, but just got promoted and setting up business (maybe) with a mate. Just can't sit still...

Dan, I agree with your last few posts, and the two after, but my biggest concerns are the way that other points of view are being ignored. My main fear is the very lack of debate that surrounds this situation. There was a Times cartoon yesterday, whcih said:

"Are you A: for war with Iraq, or B: against it? Not that your opinion matters anyway".

Blair runs at the risk of being opposed to the vast majority of his party. Only now has he agreed to recall Parliament. He only released "the document" after relaising he wouldn't get anywhere if he didn't, and that paper was shot down as not containing any solid facts (does that make it innefactual? Yeah, I know...)

Maybe our "great leaders" need to spend some time listening to what's said, instead of making us listen to them.



Anyway, here's some specific answers from your reply to my last post.

"Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?"

Tolerate everything except intolerence. It's always good to have a different point of view - society needs that chaotic edge in order to be able to evolve, but as pointed out already, not everything has something that can be accepted.

"On Star Trek: The Next Generation we learned the Federation had become allies with the Klingon Empire, a bunch of "militaristic hawks" if there ever were one - they fight simply for the love of battle, because they are "warriors". Yet the Federation finds something of value in them. Perhaps then there is something of value in the point of view of the hawks."

I always saw Klingons as a letout - most fan sites describe them as the ultimate space vikings/bikers. I listen to Cradle of Filth, and I'm listening to Nile right now. I play violent computer games to relieve stress. I would never commit the acts in "Lord Abortion", but I sing along well enough.

In person, I hate violence; for me, it's a sign of failure. There are letous for fighting that are more constructive than the way things are going. Pax Americana anyone? After all, who's going to challenge it when Iraq goes down?

"(Ironically, there is a parallel on Enterprise, where the Vulcans, inventors of IDIC, can't seem to find much of value in the Humans - Phlox even chastizes T'Pol over this. Perhaps the Vulcan-Human relationship is a metaphor for the European-American one"

I often thought as the League of Non-aligned worlds from B5 like the pre-EU Europe - too small to have effective power, too much history and national identity to come together. But I stopped watching Enterprise when I noticed that I kept falling asleep through it. But that's either here or there.


Consider this:

Bush wants Europe to fight with/for him, but also shafted us royally with the steel and farming tarriffs and subsidies. The EU has been more reasonable than most, because they acceptt teh value of a dialogue, whcvih he ignored. After a long cooling off period, only when they immediately threatened 4 billion dollars worth of trade did it even get a mention.
I work in the Legal services sector in negotiating solicitors costs, and I've seen some solicitors work like that - they only do anything about it once the order has been made for them to pay costs - should'ha negotiated, boyo.