Re: just checking...

>>> Well, sure, I think we *all* agree on that. The question is who's problem
>>> it is.
>>
>> Why can't it be everyone's?
>
> Not everyone is as willing to share the burden as you. ;)

Okay, sorry, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse with this, nor
cross-pollinate, but the gay debate thing is really sticking in my
head. I'm on the verge of seeing this whole thing a different way, and
I'm trying to understand.

I am inferring from your comment that it is not Palin's problem if
other people are inflamed by what she said, because she didn't mean it
in an inflammatory way. Is that correct?

In the gay debate, the responsibility was flipped: it was *my* problem
if other people were inflamed, regardless of my intent. Or, at least,
it was my responsibility.

If I understand your response in the other current thread, the
difference is that you don't see "sacred" as being inflammatory in the
same way that "gay" is. But now I'm wondering why it matters whether
*you* feel that "gay" is more inflammatory, or whether *I* feel that
"sacred" is more inflammatory, or whatever. If we're going to make
judgement calls on a word-by-word basis, do we actually have a
position? Or are we just rolling with the waves our personal feelings?
That wouldn't be sound.

So on the one hand I'm beginning to feel Palin's pain, and feel more
inclined to cut her some slack. On the other, I didn't seem to get any
slack when I was in her shoes.

Hrmmm. Truly uncertain here.

-- 
-pcg
 [email protected]

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot