[MD] S/O and Morality

[pholden at davtv.com]

Arlo:

In addition to fear, hate and envy are also rampant in today's social rhetoric.
The MOQ solution is exactly as you say, " . . .lay out a intellectual, reasonable 
argument for the dangers and offer potential solutions. That's about the best we
can do." In pursuing that moral goal, personal attacks should be shunned. 


> [Arlo]
> Fear, it's what's for dinner.
> 
> [Platt]
> Agree in principle. Not only politicians but the media thrive on fear.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yes, and make sure you recognize that its not only the so-called 
> "mainstream media" that resorts to fear, but also other media outlets 
> like talk-radio and Net Media.
> 
> Oddly, this was a central point in "Bowling for Columbine", where 
> Moore considers the violence in America to be rooted in part in a 
> media that bends over backwards to scare people about this threat or another.
> 
> [Platt]
> There are times, however, when fear is justified but the very common 
> psychology of denial occurs.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And here is where the danger of degeneration in the dialogue begins, 
> namely in overlaying "justifiable" with "my party". That is the mess 
> that got us where we are. Both sides pander to their own proclaimed 
> "justifiable" things we should be afraid of, while ridiculing that 
> which the other party professes should scare us.
> 
> Are there things we should be concerned about? Absolutely. But I 
> don't think we need to rely on fear, a kind of Armageddon-rhetoric, 
> to get this information out there. Or maybe we do, maybe we as a 
> culture are so conditioned to only pay attention when someone yells 
> "Fire!!!" that simple, straightforward dialogue is impossible.
> 
> I think the key is pointing out specific, workable, areas of concern. 
> Take illegal immigration. Are there things about it that should 
> concern us? Absolutely. Is the end of America eminent? Of course not. 
> Same with global pollution. Are there things that should concern us? 
> Yes. Are we only days away from "The Day After Tomorrow"? No.
> 
> [Platt]
> I'm thinking particularly of the lead up to WW II when Churchill's 
> warnings were a cry in the wilderness.
> 
> [Arlo]
> There will always be real dangers in the world. But what saddens me 
> is that our own shortsightedness following WWI, and our overall 
> sympathies with the Master Race dialogue of the Nazis, led to a 
> situation that only after many, many years became one where war was 
> the solution. Do not forget that Henry Ford, among others, was a 
> staunch backer of Hitler, even receiving the top Nazi award given to 
> foreigners.
> 
> [Platt]
> I wonder if the MOQ has any clues as to how to assess potential 
> dangers. What immediately comes to mind is any threat to free speech 
> and other intellectual level rights that oppose to social conformity. 
> I'd be interested if you have suggestions for any other MOQ clues of 
> legitimate threats.
> 
> [Arlo]
> As started this thread, there is always reason for concern when 
> social powers subvert intellectual patterns. And that's also part of 
> the solution, as I believe "fear" is social-level rhetoric. If you 
> believe caution is in order, lay out a intellectual, reasonable 
> argument for the dangers and offer potential solutions. That's about 
> the best we can do.


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/