From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: kids and morals
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 09:55:56 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Into the breach :)
 
Jim Cobabe argues, with much shortness of breath :) :
>We seem to be back to the "normative argument" requirement once
>again.  You expect people to follow some critera imposed by you before
>they can "reasonably" act upon their convictions.  If they don't
>satisfy your requirement, you consider them a "herd".
 
It depends on how they act. If a group of KKK guys lynches a jew or a
black person, "herd" is about the nicest thing I could call them.
 
I don't impose criteria. I just wish to see some reasons before making
an attack on something. If the attackers cannot supply those reasons,
then they are still free to carry on with their actions, but they should
expect a fight.
 
>you seem to lump everyone who joins an activist group
>(except the ones whose causes you support, I am sure) into this "herd"
>category.  Everyone is free to have opinions different than yours,
>unless they act upon them, whereupon they are just exhibiting "herd
>mentality".
 
Wrong again :) A person is a member of a herd if they do something
simply because everyone else does something - and this goes for any
group of people, including the ones I throw my own lot in with.
Normally, this sort of thing is reasonably innocuous, but when the herd
starts stomping on non-herd-members, I am simply saying they should
expect some resistance.
 
But you're right - I do think that action without forethought is
potentially dangerous. Please let me know if you disagree with me, so I
can keep clear of you when you're on the road :)
 
>> Which choices am I being derogatory about? The Nazis? The KKK? The
>> poor dears - I didn't know they were so sensitive.
 
>How about the NOW?
 
When did I say anything about the NOW?
 
>Does a public demonstration with thousands of participants constitute
>symptoms of "herd mentality"?  Or is this group composed entirely of
>people who act only after carefully considered and logical planning?
 
I expect such a demonstration is made up of both. ANY demonstration. You
could walk up to members of that crowd and say "why are you here?" and
bunches of them would say "because I'm part of [name of sponsoring
organization]."
 
And I don't object to public protests as long as they stay peaceful. I
think that the folks who are trying to railroad anti-abortion laws into
Congress could probably spend their time more productively than sticking
their noses into other people's wombs, but they have a right to public
marches and things.
 
>> Of course people have a right to think what they wanna think. When
>> this thought transforms into actions, though, we can't afford to be
>> quite as easygoing.
 
>So, which ones do you want to restrain?  Let me guess...
 
You'd guess wrong :) I thought I had made it clear. I object to the
people who allow their personal feelings/gripes/biases/whatever to
manifest as violent activity. I obejct to lynchings, bombings, and
drive-by shootings, whether those actions were carefully considered or
not. I would object to a band of agnostics spraypainting slogans on a
church wall if I heard of such a thing.
 
My own feelings about these groups are not part of the equation - if
your actions affect other people, they need to be considered, no matter
what they are.
 
>I didn't venture an opinion on abortion.  But if you wish to
>characterize proponents of one side of this controversy as a "herd", I
>suppose a case could be made for labelling the other side as the same.
 
Once more, it is not the BELIEFS that make someone a member of a herd-
it's the attitude. I'm sure there are as many herd memebers in the
pro-choice groups as there are in the NOW marches.
 
>Ah, yes, the ever popular book-burning stigma.  Sometime this week I
>heard a discussion about removal of Twain's literary classic
>_Huckleberry Finn_ from the required reading list of some oh-so-
>politically-correct institution of elementary education.  Have you
>heard about this?  Does this qualify as "herd mentality"?
 
Of course not. This isn't even relevant to the discussion. Educators
are free to put whatever books on their required reading lists that they
chose. But removing a book from a required list does not count as
"banning." I would object if they tried to keep the book off the shelves
of the library.
 
>> Ah, yes. Paving the road to hell with the intentions of gangs. "I had
>> the best intentions during that drive-by shooting. Honest." Besides,
>> when did I characterize gangs? Do you mean that the new youth
>> organizations in Huntsville are NOT gangs?
 
>I was thinking more of the teen-age gangs that I associate with.
>Boy scouts.  Sunday school groups.  Things like that.
 
Okay. A case of different definitions :) But those types of groups
weren't the types I was referring to when I mentioned the word "gangs."
In fact, I don't think I've ever heard a boy scout troop or a sunday
school class referred to with the same adjectives used to describe the
Crips and the Bloods.


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion