From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 11:13:17 MST
From: KPJ <kpj@sics.se>
>It appears as if Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com> wrote [re
>Jackson]:
>-------------------- START QUOTE [1] -------------------
>|Yeah, lately everytime some guy get's caught with his pant's
>|down someone bring's up this lame excuse. Humans have a large
>|brain and are supposed to use it, and no silly biological fact is
>|a good excuse for a lack of character or integrity.
>-------------------- END QUOTE [1] ---------------------
Although Jackson was mentioned in the article, I did not
specifically mention him in my quote. I was arguing the general
principal.
>If one find biological facts to not match one's meme system, and
>one decides to ignore the biological facts due to this, then I
>call that a "prejudice".
>From Websters: prejudice 1) an unfavorable opinion or feeling
formed beforehand and without knowledge or reason.
Obviously we use different definitions.
>It really appears as if you meant that referring to biological
>theories as to human male behavior, esp. Mr. Jackson's
>extramatrimonical activities, was a (quote) "lame excuse" (end
>quote).
Not his in particular, although he is technically a member of the
set (of all male adulterers).
>Or did you react on the word "prejudice" as too harsh a word to
>classify such an opinion?
I though it incorrect, as it is we use different definitions
>Due to oppression of personal freedom from humans in government,
>religion, and in other groups, the only way for humans to live
>together requires that they do these meaningless rituals as
>required by the Government or the Right Religion. Those who
>mistake empty rituals for a lack of character or integrity make a
>great mistake, indeed. Most humans do not wish to fight oppression
>as ardently as Number 6 in the Prisoner TV series does.
An interesting tactic! You're attempting to claim that "the rules"
don't apply in certain communities.
>Societies consist of individuals, and individuals have customs, a
>"society" being an abstraction in the head of humans. Abstraction
>cannot feel, cannot have customs, etc. Individuals do. Minor
>point, though.
I would argue that societies are more than an abstraction, and they
have laws.
>You commented on the Jackson individual, so naturally I assumed
>you really meant to discuss him, as a specific example of a
>general rule. If you did not mean that, then I will naturally
>repent.
>I claim only how it appeared to me. If I am in error, feel free to
>correct me.
It seems a simple difference, no repenting necessary. ;)
I would state in concluding that being ruled by animal instincts
may be appropriate for animals, but not appropriate for humans, and
definitely not for Extropians or other Transhumans.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:50 MST