[lit-ideas] Re: Redecker

  • From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:50:56 EST

 
Once again catching up on way old mail, courtesy of yet another 4 or 5 inches 
 of snow... 
<<Political positions (in my opinion; this could make 
a good  debate) are basically amoral 


I may be jumping the gun here (perhaps I will find a  few posts on that you 
did address this, but if I wait until I read them all,  well .... ), but I'd 
like to hear you expound a little on this statement.   My knee-jerk reflex is 
to 
profoundly disagree, but I think I need to know more  about what that 
sentence means to you.  I'm suspecting my understanding of  it isn't you intent 
of it.
 
Julie Krueger
cold

========Original Message========
Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Redecker  Date: 1/22/2007 2:51:09 P.M. Central Standard 
Time  From: _eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   To: 
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    
>>. . . this little statement of Eric's  makes no sense.  People do not 
choose their colour, so one would expect  both good and bad.  But they do 
choose their political persuasion, so  we need have no such expectation. 
I do note your smile,  Eric.  Just making a point about groups and groups.


However--  :-) continuing -- unless the groups in question are primarily 
representing  moral issues, like a Satanist After School Club or 
something, one could  expect both good and bad. Neocons represent a 
political position. Political  positions (in my opinion; this could make 
a good debate) are basically  amoral, so one's moral expectations of them 
are also  broad.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To  change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest  on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: