From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 12:34:55 MDT
Point of Personnal Privilege (Roberts Rules of Order)
From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>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.
Well since I don't "know" for certain, and I do use both logic and
rationality, and admire/support those who do, by your own
definition I am not an extremist.
The rest is differing experience/opinion.
>> 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.
I made no such conclusion and I indicated at least three possible
answers.
Strawman argument.
You ignore the facts, which is the exact opposite of extropianism.
The Arabs have refused every compromise since 1947, and have
consistantly refused to negotiate. When one side refuses to
negotiate or accept the outcome of negotiations they are
technically over. It is the Arabs/Palestinians who initiated
violence first and time after time.
The only time the Israelis have used violence is to retaliate for
violence, or in the case of '67 to preempt an imminent attack.
>Your definition and example seem diametrically opposed to my
>definitions and examples.
I have presented counter arguments and examples.
May I suggest www.camera.org for more info.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:34 MST