From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 10:41:35 MDT
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 09:48 am, Brian D Williams wrote:
> When you apply logic and rationality to politics you are often seen
> as extreme, since it's decisions are usually made based on
> emotions, and your position violates others preconceived notions.
This has not been my experience. In my experience, applying logic and
rationality is viewed as being "moderate" or "compromising". Extremists
always seem to "know" what must be done, and they want to act
immediately. Extremists do not use logic and rationality, and they
consider those who do to be obstructionists.
> Take the middle east problem. Two groups want to live in the same
> area. Logic says they should negotiate and come to a settlement
> whereas they can both live there.
>
> But one group refuses to live with the other group, so no
> negotiation is possible. The only current solution is for them to
> battle it out till one party is eliminated, or the party refusing
> to negotiate changes it's postion, or a new solution is found.
>
> Simple application of the principals.
This is the exact OPPOSITE of the extropian principles. The example
gives up on logic and negotiation. It replaces them with emotions,
force and violence. It concludes that genocide of one faction is the
only answer. This is extremism, and about as unextropian as you can get.
Your definition and example seem diametrically opposed to my definitions
and examples.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:34 MST