On civil discourse

[Stoutman]

I was reading an interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Imprimis, a publication by Hilsdale College in Michigan. It reminded me of the moderators on this site and some recent threads that got off topic. I came away with a greater appreciation for the rules about discussing politics and other contentious subjects. Here is a quote from the interview with Justice Thomas as published in the October 2007 issue of Imprimis, when he was asked why he won't discuss ideas with brutes:

 

Can a diehard Packers fan have a civil conversation with a diehard Bears fan right after a close game? That’s what I’m talking about. There are some people now who are so wrapped up in their interests that that’s all they care about. They don’t even read the opinions that I write. It is their interests that govern them, not the thought process or the Constitution. They’ve got to have their way or they’ll kill you—not physically, necessarily, but certainly with calumnies. There are people today who seem unable to transcend their interests to the point necessary to have a civil discourse.

 

Once again my hat is off to the moderators of this site.

 

P.S. Calumnies = lies. I had to look that up.

[Orrin]

I agree. Although I am not a fan of CT I have to support him on this. We have had too many inflamatory posts lately on sbjects that most of us will always disagree.

[RedRider]

AWWW, you had to spoil the ending!!

 

I just received my Imprimus today and will be reading the CT interview shortly.

 

RR

[Guest BluesLover]

Perfect! Thanks for sharing.

 

I had one of those "discussions" - at work - yesterday.

 

Think I'll send the individual who I had the "discussion" with that paragraph, so that maybe both of us can learn something.

 

Cheers,