Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 9:09 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Message Board

  • WinBen1 WinBen1 Jul 30, 2004 12:22 PM Flag

    Politics/ Wise SH

    Politics are very much like the parable of the tree blind men asked to discribe an elephant.

    The first man is led tot hr trunk and he exclaimes that elephants are thick, articulated, moist and and have an unusual wheezing sound.

    The second man is lead to the center of the elephant and reports that no that is not correct. Elephants are wide, tall, warm and make no sound at all.

    The third man is led to the tail and rebukes both of the other mens descriptions by stating, Elephants are most definitely skinny, with hairy heads and have the most offensive smell.

    Now in all three cases each was correct based on their limited exposure but none were right.

    There is a laundry list of Presidents who possesed personal foibles who had to make diificult decisions and were lambasted at the time they did so only to have history reflect on their sagacity.

    Attacking a man for past mistakes without current context leaves the attacker open to the same scrutiny. I know of no man that has led a life that he would not adjust given the opportunity. So one must consider the source of diatribe and reflect on its veracity based on the pureness of its speaker.

    I sit in judgement of no mans character because I have not worn his shoes however, I reserve the right to disagree.

    Disagreement and discourse are the foundations of a democracy. Name calling and litmus tests are the beginnings of fascism.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I disagree.
      this is your 1st time.
      never lower your intellect
      to much of the posts on here.
      wise


      by: WinBen1 (36/M/virgin islands)
      Long-Term Sentiment: Buy 07/30/04 04:13 pm
      Msg: 1039386 of 1039389

      Djj:

      I do not deserve such a mention. I get it from a book on my desk called "How to sound smart at a cocktail party" I am a plagerist.....




      .

    • You should write speeches for politicians. you have a knack for making something sound very correct and appealing without actually saying much of anything at all.

    • I agree with ALMOST everything you said. There is one point that I would ask you to consider, "I sit in judgement of no mans character because I have not worn his shoes however, I reserve the right to disagree."

      We are often required "to sit in judgement" of the character of others. Anyone who has hired or fired has to look at the record of the individual in question (their behavior based on decisions--ultimately this becomes "character"). Anyone considering a major purchase will scrutinize the salesperson or company closely (concerning quality, reliability & reputation). A banker analyzing a large loan to a borrower must judge that individual based on their record of earning and paying--reliability and responsibility. Same goes for dating, and relationships of all kinds (business and personal).

      We are often sizing up the character of others, i.e. are they honest, trustworthy, consistant, forgiving, harsh, negative or positive minded, responsible, etc....

      I know it SOUNDS good to say we don't sit in judgement of others. I agree that we cannot see the whole picture of what is in an individual's heart and life's experiences--so sometimes attempted to "judge" intent or motive is risky.

      But we MUST make judgements (decisions) about the type of people we chose to associate with --or who will lead us.

      Character is very important. We gather as many "facts" as possible, hopefully sifting out the chaff of rumor and spin and arrive at the best decision we are capable of.

      -----------------------------------------------


      By: WinBen1
      Date: 07/30/04 12:22 pm

      Politics are very much like the parable of the tree blind men asked to discribe an elephant.

      The first man is led tot hr trunk and he exclaimes that elephants are thick, articulated, moist and and have an unusual wheezing sound.

      The second man is lead to the center of the elephant and reports that no that is not correct. Elephants are wide, tall, warm and make no sound at all.

      The third man is led to the tail and rebukes both of the other mens descriptions by stating, Elephants are most definitely skinny, with hairy heads and have the most offensive smell.

      Now in all three cases each was correct based on their limited exposure but none were right.

      There is a laundry list of Presidents who possesed personal foibles who had to make diificult decisions and were lambasted at the time they did so only to have history reflect on their sagacity.

      Attacking a man for past mistakes without current context leaves the attacker open to the same scrutiny. I know of no man that has led a life that he would not adjust given the opportunity. So one must consider the source of diatribe and reflect on its veracity based on the pureness of its speaker.

      I sit in judgement of no mans character because I have not worn his shoes however, I reserve the right to disagree.

      Disagreement and discourse are the foundations of a democracy. Name calling and litmus tests are the beginnings of fascism.

      • 1 Reply to steel_hd
      • Steel:

        One may make judgements based on a mans character and even make inferences based on their decisions to our perception of the desirability of their character. However, I find myself uncomfortable in sitting in judgement of the man himself.

        It returns one to the ethics problem of a man stealing a loaf of bread for a starving family. It is easy to say that stealing is wrong regardless of circumstance and that the man could have made better decisions that would have provided more honorable alternatives. That however is historical review, if a man has a family that is starving right now and has no other alternative other than stealing to forego their starvation or letting them starve, which is the correct answer.

        It is similar to the situation in Iraq, the only way for us to be sure that their were no WMD's was to go and determine it. People forget that Saddam was the largest WMD in the country killing thousands of his own people every year without remorse. The problem is that now we have the luxury of historical review and can point safely at the fact that none of consequence have been found. We however cannot prove the negative of what might have occured if we had allowed him to stay in place.

        The same general scenario played itself out in WWII we allowed Hitler to practice genecide and build up his military even to the point of annexing heavy water plants in Norway. We were within six months fo having the war take a different outcome, what would have happened if he had acquired fissable material with the V-2 platform to launch it from? Or what would have happened if we had sent someone to assasinate him in 1937? We would have been pre-emptive and devoid of knowledge of what was to come later would have had the same general arguments that we have against our involvement in Iraq.

        I wish the world was black and white but there is a large gray mass that separates that clarity. I try to wrap my mind around the fact that the man who shot Hitler would have been considered a murderer in 1937 but a hero in 1945. The cost of that character upgrade was 10 million European, American, Russian and Jewish lives.

        So I agree with your right to judge someone on their ethical behaviour and your right to judge their decisions and infer but for me character is how you behave when no one is watching so how can I be sure.

    • You're absolutely right, winben.

      You shouldn't criticize until you've walked a mile in someone's shoes. After that, it's OK, 'cause youre a mile away, & you have his shoes. What's he gonna do?


      Subj: Politics/ Wise SH
      By: WinBen1

      I sit in judgement of no mans character because I have not worn his shoes however, I reserve the right to disagree.
      Date: 07/30/04 12:22 pm

 
SIRI
3.14-0.03(-0.95%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.