Comments on: What Rosa Parks defied still exists

By: Kerlyssa

Kerlyssa — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:11:11 +0000

Does usually not imposing your beliefs on others release you from the obligation to self examine?

Only the revolutionary is required to justify their actions and inactions?

By: AmbivaBlog

AmbivaBlog — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:57:20 +0000

“Amber and Cruelty”

That arresting phrase is the name of a new category and tag for a series of posts over at Random Fate. Jack is still working out the concept, which is the diametrical opposite of what he envisions moderation to be:

By: russ

russ — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:57:23 +0000

It seems to me that it is less of question of allowing for the possibility that you are wrong, as it is in accepting that - at least in many cases - whether you are right or wrong does not imply an obligation on others. I have strong religious beliefs, myself, which I (naturally) believe to be correct. But tolerance requires me to say that others have every right to hold different beliefs and I have no right to impose mine on them.

There are limits to tolerance, of course. I am not willing to say that people who would murder in the name of their own beliefs have a valid perspective.

By: In Search Of Utopia

In Search Of Utopia — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:55:41 +0000

Two things to think about before reacting

I have had issues of my own that have prevented me from guest-posting here while David was off taking care of business, so unfortunately I have not been a good “guest blogger” here. However, at the risk of abusing the…

By: Bloggledygook

Bloggledygook — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:53:38 +0000

May I Have This Indictment, Please?

With everybody atwitter today about indictments, I thought that it would be a good idea to engage in some irresponsible speculation. You know, as a public service. So here goes: There will be indictments. Both sides will be disappointed. The

By: Daniel Berczik

Daniel Berczik — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:46:08 +0000

Sorry for hogging this, but I wanted to add something. As in the last administration (I know this because I suffered this malady) the partisans and/or those who have been won over by one or another policy/feature of this present administration have allowed themselves to so closely identify with the president or his accolytes that if (when) they find that these people really are as flawed as everybody else (or more), it will cause a certain “crisis of faith” wherein everything that one believes is suddenly called into question. I could talk about that for a while, but this is your site. I’ll shut up now.

By: Daniel Berczik

Daniel Berczik — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:39:04 +0000

You remind me of Bertand Russell’s definition of “liberal:”
“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

I have been excortiated from both sides now, just for relating the facts and comenting on, say, what the odds are that such-and-such will happen. Instead of wanting information, and being willing to have information form opinion, we are ending up with what amounts to football. My team, right or wrong. But then again, football fans will boo their own team when they screw up, so maybe the metaphor is strained.

We talk about this often, Jack. I used to just chalk it up to stupidity, but I’m not so sure now. Maybe there is something wired in people that protects them from the whiplash that comes when reality doesn’t match the belief. So we make up excuses for why something happens (and this happens no matter the party/dogma).

So I stay “liberal” and never assume I know it all.

By: Searchlight Crusade

Searchlight Crusade — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:10:45 +0000

Links and Minifeatures 10 25 Tuesday

Carnival of Liberty is up at Eric’s Grumbles. Recommended: Eidelblo…