From: Mark Walker (tap@cgocable.net)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 06:24:45 MDT
Hal wrote:
> The second point is one I have made before, that I feel we should work
> toward a new methodology for addressing the genuine difficulties which
> some people have with aspects of future technology. The language of
> battle, of conflict, is not the appropriate metaphor for addressing
> this problem. We should not seek to vanquish our opponents, to defeat
> them in debate or in politics.
>
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Hal (and others) that it it probably
wise for us to avoid military metaphors in this debate. (And who among us is
not guilty of this at one time or another? After all, even to say that 'my
argument was defeated' is not as neutral as saying 'the argument was
demonstrated to be unsound'). Of course we do not want to literally vanquish
or "crush" Bill Joy, rather, if these metaphors are appropriate at all, it
is Bill Joy's arguments that we are referring to. But given the ease which
we humans so easily slide from the position to the person, we ought to avoid
these metaphors. This advice, I must admit, is certainly not wasted on me.
Mark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:16 MST