Volume 95, Issue 15

Wednesday, September 26, 2001
Search the Archives:
Tips for searching

Campus and Culture
Submit Letter
Contact Us
About the Gazette


Temperance to spare

Canada: a land of cowards?

Barbarism on our brethren?

I think tea is great

The shortcoming of agreeing to disagree

A challenge to WIN

He ain't sexist, he's my brother


'De-robing for charity' crusade?

Canadians make me sick

The 'us/them' dynamic

The shortcoming of agreeing to disagree

Re: "I can make my own bread," Sept. 19

To the Editor:

A sanction of the atrocities in New York was granted in The Gazette in the form of something I have heard all to often – we must agree to disagree.

The idea behind this statement seems to be that one idea is equally as good as another. In other words, two ideas, no matter what their differences, are just a difference in opinion and the ideas are just things to argue over and have no real bearing on the real world.

It doesn't matter who wins the argument, ideas don't matter anyway, right?

Wrong. Ideas have implications, people. If you dismiss the importance of those ideas by equating good and bad ones by "agreeing to disagree," you invalidate your own ideas.

You are saying your ideas are no better than anyone else's.

Right now, I am concerned with one idea in particular – justice. It is by the idea of justice that the criminals who committed these heinous crimes will be punished.

I have no problem with cultural tolerance. In fact, I think it is wonderful our campus has such a diverse student body.

My acceptance of the beliefs of others ends at the point where those beliefs allow a person to righteously initiate force against me with a hostile attack.

Bryan Watson

Honours Economics III

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2001