From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 04:44:00 MDT
Wei Dai wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:43:10PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
>
>>It strikes me as bizarre that you would respond in your "open letter"
>>to Gina in such a superficially friendly and open way, but completely
>>ignore the main issue of contention between you. If you were actually
>>feeling as friendly as your tone suggested, wouldn't it be honest to
>>openly address the issues which Gina has raised above?
>>
>
> I have to say I'm more sympathetic to Lee Corbin's situation than you are.
> What if you were in his shoes? Suppose you came to the conclusion that a
> very popular philosophical position is incorrect. After explaining your
> ideas on the Extropians mailing list, you're met with emotional responses
> expressing revulsion and distress and calls for censorship, and trying to
> defend your ideas only seems to cause more emotional distress. What would
> you do?
Wait a second. Who called for "censorship"? Expressing extreme
repugnance for an opinion is not a call for censorship.
What would I do? I have been on the other side when I expressed
opinions about 9/11 that many others objected to. I kept on in
that case because I felt that it was important that we look at
some other interpretations and implications of these powerful
and world changing events. I don't see how it is equally
important that we grant it may be rational to allow parents to
do whatever they wish, and even kill their children by not
passing laws against such behavior.
>
> I don't agree with Lee's ideas, but I don't think they deserve to be
> buried under a barrage of emotional outbursts either. Let's just discuss
> them calmly and rationally.
>
Emotiona outburts? Excuse me but exactly who are you to judge
other's honest responses in this manner? My "outburts" were
rational, idea based and emotional - full spectrum. Do you have
a problem with that? I was Spock for many years. It got very
tiresome.
> I would like to challenge everyone here to avoid phrases like "it churns
> my stomach to consider ...", "I'm nauseated by the thought of ...", or "I
> can't bear think that ...". I believe a simple "I strongly disagree with
> you because ..." works much better to bring your ideas across.
>
Why should we? Our humanity including it "churing our stomach"
to consider murdering infants or raising our ire when we are
considered less because of gender or race is very important and
crucial to who we are and to building a future together. Some
ideas are not properly responded to at all if only responded to
in an intellectual manner. Saying how the idea feels to you is
just as valuable as saying what you think (outside of this)
about it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST