Fwd: Re: New kid in town

[sean <o2design@wsu.edu>]

Title: Fwd: Re: New kid in town

So would this epic exchange become know as the "Battle at You're Not OK, But I'm OK Coral?

Couldn't resistŠ

My earlier post on love & tolerance alludes to the idea of so-called "hate crimes".  I have always wondered how those who wield this term/weapon define hate.  Is it OK to hate something?  someone?  I am clear that the right hand side of the shootout would say, 'no hating folks, just their actions'.  What would their combatants say?

It seems there is venom aplenty from those who are on the watch for hate crimes/intolerance.  However it seems the violators they identify are somewhat homogeneous in their offenses.  It also seems they wear blinders to another form of hate: their own.

>
>
> I'm afraid I see only one way to settle
> this great "What is tolerance and who is more tolerant than who"
> debate.  After the holidays, I suggest an old-fashioned shootout
> on Main Street.  The liberal, progressive gang, of which I'll be
> a part, will line up (naturally) on the left end of the street, and
> the religious conservative group (the Wilson gang?) of course sets up
> on the right end.  We can converge on Third and Main and commence
> firing.  Or, if we can trust one another enough, we can line up
> back to back, count off ten paces, turn and shoot.  Maybe we can
> sell tickets with the money going to various liberal and conservative
> charities.  I really don't want to have to do this, primarily
> because I look ridiculous in a cowboy hat and chaps.  And, I
> really have had no experience handling a six-shooter, and I don't have
> a holster.  And who would get to wear the white hats? On second
> thought, maybe there's a better
> way....               
>                                                                            
>                                              
> Carl Westberg Jr.
>
>
>
>
> > From: Douglas
> > <dougwils@moscow.com>
> > To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > Subject: New kid in town
> > Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:05:35 -0800
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Received: from mc1-f11.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.236.18]) by mc1-s3.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600);
    Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:53:48 -0800
Received: from whale2.fsr.net ([207.141.26.23]) by mc1-f11.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600);
       Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:53:47 -0800
Received: from whale2.fsr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
     by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB4Grk8X005476;
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:53:46 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from vision2020-request@moscow.com)
Received: (from slist@localhost)
   by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB4Grkxt005475;
     Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:53:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: whale2.fsr.net: slist set sender to vision2020-request@moscow.com using -f
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021204083353.01abe660@mail.moscow.com>
X-Sender: dougwils@mail.moscow.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:05:35 -0800
To: vision2020@moscow.com
From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
Subject: New kid in town
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <bluudD.A.VRB.XMj79@whale2.fsr.net>
Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/4311
X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Return-Path: vision2020-request@moscow.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2002 16:53:47.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6E5E220:01C29BB5]

> Morning visionaries!
>
> Carl Westberg identified my subtle and nuanced discourse as a
> "nice rambling response" and pointed out that I did not
> answer his question directly, which is true enough. So here is my
> direct answer. People who would not choose one another for fishing
> buddies can nonetheless tolerate one another and live in blissful
> co-existence. I affirm this heartily, and without mental reservation,
> yea and amen. Having made this affirmation, I will now begin counting
> all the posts from the progressive sector that identify me as the
> "tolerant Douglas Wilson." You see, if this is tolerance,
> then we are all equally tolerant. If it is not tolerance, then
> your question was a red herring designed to keep the progressives from
> having to define what their tolerance really is. But I know what it
> is--it is Nice People United. Progressives, for all their sweet and
> inclusive rhetoric, are really out to demonize any substantive
> opposition to their agenda.
> Ted Moffett returned to his question about a "lowest common
> denominator" approach to a shared human ethic. My answer is that,
> on the basis of a common Creator, we are in fact living in the same
> universe. But because of human sin and rebellion, we find regular,
> systematic, and ongoing attempts on the part of mankind to create
> various hellish alternative ethical systems, attempts to create other
> universes than the one God gave to us. I do not want to boil these
> rebellions down to the bone in an attempt to find out that larceny
> laws in Nazi Germany were very similar to ours. That may be, but it
> would be to miss the central point.
>
> The lowest common denominator approach will not work because of:
>
> 1. Nazi hatred of Jews;
> 2. Muslim hatred of women;
> 3. Aztec hatred of prisoners of war;
> 4. American hatred of the unborn;
> 5. Dutch hatred of the elderly;
> 6. Palestinian hatred of Jews;
> 7. Israeli hatred of Palestinians;
> 8. Muslim hatred of New Yorkers;
> 9. IRA hatred of the English;
> 10. English hatred of the Irish;
> 11. Ad nauseam.
>
> Common ground can be found between all these groups. But I
> don't care that individuals in all these groups brush their teeth,
> thus emphasizing the importance of dental hygiene. Who is against
> dental hygiene? Not me! But that is hardly the point. The so-called
> common ground ethic of liberal progressives is based on a myth that is
> quaint and entirely insular. The central problem with it is that it is
> so damned provincial. Some people need to get out more. The Saudi
> hijackers did not derive their ethical marching orders from the Cosby
> show.
>
> Cordially,
>
>
> Douglas Wilson

--

Thanks,
s


        * * * * * * * *
        Sean Michael
        .dwg