05-08-2016, 10:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2016, 10:55 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
At risk of going off topic...
I don't see that this forum attracts many unintelligent people. It does attract people with strong and often unusual values systems. It is tempting to say that if somebody doesn't agree with one, that somebody must be unintelligent, or otherwise worthy of strong personal attacks. I try not to perceive it that way. It is not easy at all for individuals to change their values. I try to assume that if someone disagrees with me, it is because he has strong conflicting values.
At what point in history did the other guy's values system get created? What problems existed in that time and that place which these values were intended to solve? Did these values work for a time, have success? One would assume yes. Value systems generally don't become widely spread unless they worked for a time. Are they still succeeding in some places? Did the other forum contributor grow up in or still live in a culture and environment where it is easy to perceive of his values being quite functional? Maybe yes, maybe no. If one grows up truly believing, it is hard to see the flaws in what one believes in.
How does this fit with The Theory? A crisis is a time where new values are created to solve obvious problems. It follows that if someone is advocating a common perspective or set of values, there was some crisis in the past which presented a problem that was solved with said values.
Thus, if a communist should wander in, I have no trouble understanding why Marx wrote as he did or how Lenin and Mao gathered enough followers to gain power. There were obvious problems with the culture of the times, and they had plausible sounding solutions. This doesn't mean I haven't noticed that the plausible seeming solutions were not perfect. Let's discuss what went wrong, how it might be fixed, and whether starting from Jefferson's perspective rather than Marx's might be better. Still, let's talk about communism rather than the personality traits of the communist. Yes, the communist will be a firm and inflexible believer. Aren't we all firm and inflexible believers in something or another? I kinda like Newton and Jefferson, myself.
Similarly, if a gun prohibitionist gets going, I'll talk about how and why our gun culture developed, and about how many people believe the gun culture is still working, perhaps with good cause. I see this as much more constructive on a history and politics forum than focusing on the personalities and character flaws of the forum contributors.
As someone who wants to explore how history shapes cultures and values, I am displeased by how rapidly our discussion gets diverted into insults and squabbling. This doesn't mean I'm exactly sure where to draw the line. Still, if two people are going at each other by name, and the points they are making have nothing to do with history, politics or the purpose of the thread, I'm dubious. If people enjoy a good verbal brawl -- and, yes, what I do could also be understood as having a good verbal brawl -- let them brawl. Just let them do it in a designated ad-hominum zone rather than everywhere and constantly.
I don't see that this forum attracts many unintelligent people. It does attract people with strong and often unusual values systems. It is tempting to say that if somebody doesn't agree with one, that somebody must be unintelligent, or otherwise worthy of strong personal attacks. I try not to perceive it that way. It is not easy at all for individuals to change their values. I try to assume that if someone disagrees with me, it is because he has strong conflicting values.
At what point in history did the other guy's values system get created? What problems existed in that time and that place which these values were intended to solve? Did these values work for a time, have success? One would assume yes. Value systems generally don't become widely spread unless they worked for a time. Are they still succeeding in some places? Did the other forum contributor grow up in or still live in a culture and environment where it is easy to perceive of his values being quite functional? Maybe yes, maybe no. If one grows up truly believing, it is hard to see the flaws in what one believes in.
How does this fit with The Theory? A crisis is a time where new values are created to solve obvious problems. It follows that if someone is advocating a common perspective or set of values, there was some crisis in the past which presented a problem that was solved with said values.
Thus, if a communist should wander in, I have no trouble understanding why Marx wrote as he did or how Lenin and Mao gathered enough followers to gain power. There were obvious problems with the culture of the times, and they had plausible sounding solutions. This doesn't mean I haven't noticed that the plausible seeming solutions were not perfect. Let's discuss what went wrong, how it might be fixed, and whether starting from Jefferson's perspective rather than Marx's might be better. Still, let's talk about communism rather than the personality traits of the communist. Yes, the communist will be a firm and inflexible believer. Aren't we all firm and inflexible believers in something or another? I kinda like Newton and Jefferson, myself.
Similarly, if a gun prohibitionist gets going, I'll talk about how and why our gun culture developed, and about how many people believe the gun culture is still working, perhaps with good cause. I see this as much more constructive on a history and politics forum than focusing on the personalities and character flaws of the forum contributors.
As someone who wants to explore how history shapes cultures and values, I am displeased by how rapidly our discussion gets diverted into insults and squabbling. This doesn't mean I'm exactly sure where to draw the line. Still, if two people are going at each other by name, and the points they are making have nothing to do with history, politics or the purpose of the thread, I'm dubious. If people enjoy a good verbal brawl -- and, yes, what I do could also be understood as having a good verbal brawl -- let them brawl. Just let them do it in a designated ad-hominum zone rather than everywhere and constantly.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.