11-26-2008, 11:00 AM
Jon, I understand your point. I believe it was P.K Wrigley who said (I paraphrase) "I don't want an employee who thinks like me, because then one of us is not necessary."
But I also understand Daniel's point of view: to accomplish anything--even just to argue--you at least have to start from some common assumption(s) and/or common goals to anchor your logic to.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that our founding fathers fought over the constitution. But they obviously had a superordinate goal that trumped their differences. The diversity that I think you are talking about, is the idea of discussing (hopefully in a civil manner) all the different ways to get to that common goal. If that's an accurate assessment of what you mean, then we're on the same page.
Upon reflection, I think my earlier comments in this thread were misunderstood. Dialogue and disagreement in and of itself is not a bad thing. (The comment about Rob pulling some posts was in reference to a couple inflammatory posts that wandered into national politics. Personally, I enjoy the discussions on national politics, but it's not my forum.) But what is truly silly, is the name-calling and biting comments. Why? Because when you push people into a box, it only makes them less inclined to further discuss issues and cooperate. It's human nature.
Let's debate, but do it like adults, without losing sight of a common goal. Perhaps a new thread might provide a fresh start. Then we can test whether you are right about it dying a quick death.
Now you've got me wondering...do you think during those 100 days of fighting over our Constitution, there was any baiting and petty name-calling going on? In a moment of frustration did someone yell across the table at Thomas Jefferson, " How dare you disagree with me you pot-growing progressive!" (If so, it wouldn't have been too far off the mark :-)
Tim
But I also understand Daniel's point of view: to accomplish anything--even just to argue--you at least have to start from some common assumption(s) and/or common goals to anchor your logic to.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that our founding fathers fought over the constitution. But they obviously had a superordinate goal that trumped their differences. The diversity that I think you are talking about, is the idea of discussing (hopefully in a civil manner) all the different ways to get to that common goal. If that's an accurate assessment of what you mean, then we're on the same page.
Upon reflection, I think my earlier comments in this thread were misunderstood. Dialogue and disagreement in and of itself is not a bad thing. (The comment about Rob pulling some posts was in reference to a couple inflammatory posts that wandered into national politics. Personally, I enjoy the discussions on national politics, but it's not my forum.) But what is truly silly, is the name-calling and biting comments. Why? Because when you push people into a box, it only makes them less inclined to further discuss issues and cooperate. It's human nature.
Let's debate, but do it like adults, without losing sight of a common goal. Perhaps a new thread might provide a fresh start. Then we can test whether you are right about it dying a quick death.
Now you've got me wondering...do you think during those 100 days of fighting over our Constitution, there was any baiting and petty name-calling going on? In a moment of frustration did someone yell across the table at Thomas Jefferson, " How dare you disagree with me you pot-growing progressive!" (If so, it wouldn't have been too far off the mark :-)
Tim
Tim
A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius
A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius