From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 15:10:13 MDT
On Saturday, June 8, 2002, at 04:16 pm, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Why criticize the Extropian Principles once again?
>
> In Pan Critical Rationalism, as you know, criticism is
> seen as a good thing. Indeed, I often talk to two of
> my friends for the primary purpose of soliciting criticism
> of my beliefs. "Criticize this!" is a frequent challenge
> I jokingly throw down, doing a funny-funny on the movie title
> "Analyze This!".
I understand criticism. My question is why the repeated request
specifically to criticize the principles over and over. You keep
posting this, and we keep repeating the same discussion over and over.
So I'm not asking why criticism. I'm asking why the repetition so many
times lately.
>> Yet, whenever you are called on it, you claim that it
>> was a "thought experiment" or just random musings, and
>> don't represent your own personal viewpoints at all.
>
> Gee, sorry. But I don't think that I ever said that
> my posts or suggestions were random musings or the
> equivalent. At least, I never meant to say anything
> like that. I never play devil's advocate or anything
> (except maybe indulge in a little sarcasm sometimes).
Your whole "censorship" thread came off like this. In the end, you
insisted that you never believed that Extropy Institute was censoring
anybody, but you felt it was important to hash it out in public to lead
everybody to that same conclusion. As I recall, everybody responded to
you by stating that there was no censorship. You backed down and
claimed that you never held that position. We had an entire flame-war
with nobody on the other side, because of your little experiment.
> Hmm. So you see a common denominator there, eh? I don't,
> not really. Perhaps I am questioning some things that a
> lot of people take for granted, but if that's true, then
> I guess I'd be proud of that. In fact, it would seem like
> boasting to assert that "Lee fearlessly challenging what
> others take for granted" was the common denominator. :-)
Have you accomplished anything or changed anything around here? All I
have seen is a bunch of flame-wars where we end up at the same starting
point. You aren't proposing anything new. You don't seem to seriously
suggest that there are major problems. You seem to want to go through
this exercise of defending our various beliefs, philosophies and
institutions over and over, without anything being gained as a result.
I'm getting tired of arguing the basics and proving once again that our
principles are well-thought out. We used to have rules on this list to
avoid the basics, just for this purpose. There are FAQs and
documentation to explain what we believe, why we believe it, and how we
got here.
>> Why do you keep questioning the validity or strength of
>> Extropian philosophy, institutions and social groups?
>
> I don't see it as expressing doubt about Extropianism, if
> that's what you mean. Efforts to criticize aren't the same
> as expressing doubt (as we know from PCR). As for the
> associated institutions and social groups, I have more
> confidence in them now than ever before, due to some
> recent events.
If you have a specific problem or question, we can discuss it. But I,
for one, am too busy to hash out every argument that might be proposed,
just to see what happens (especially if nobody is seriously proposing
the opposing opinion). I am tired of fighting to defend the extropian
principles, only to be told that it was just a test, and nobody really
questioned them in the first place. If you could please clearly label
your "tests" in the future, I will refrain from participating.
>
>> Are you promoting a position or trying to gather information?
>
> Well, I promote openness, fearless search for the truth
> (if that doesn't sound too pompous), tackling issues head-on,
> and trying to get to the core of things... in general. That's
> the only "position" that I know of that I'm promoting in all
> those threads.
This sounds like a fishing expedition. You aren't pushing a specific
agenda, you aren't questioning a specific assertion, you aren't working
toward a specific goal. You just want to "hash it out" again and
again. "What if" someone proposed racial groupism? "What if" someone
wanted to talk about gender differences? "What if" someone did dispute
the principles? Etc....
>> The "censorship" thread was a waste of time. Everybody argued against
>> you that there was no censorship by ExI, and in the end you claimed
>> that
>> you never believed there was censorship either.
>
> Well, I thought it turned out quite nicely :-)
> We even seemed to reach agreement. I think that
> people know better what others mean by "censorship",
> and we all got to express what kinds of censorship
> we like and what kinds we don't like.
I thought it turned out rather poorly. People thought that you were
claiming that you were being censored. We had a heated discussion, as
most of yours turn out to be. A whole bunch of people, including
myself, wasted time trying to argue why you weren't being censored. In
the end, you claimed you never thought you were being censored. A bunch
of us felt you were acting like a troll to get us to argue a point that
you really had no belief in anyway. It was a waste of time and energy.
Many people have taken vacations away from the list specifically based
on you and your actions. Some have even threatened to quit
permanently. No, I don't see this as a successful experiment.
>> Seriously, I have no intention of going through another flame-war with
>> you. Unless I can figure out what you want or what you are trying to
>> do, I am not able to response. Please be clear as to your purpose,
>> instead of asking us all to go through these pointless exercises that
>> always seem to lead nowhere.
>
> Okay, I've tried to be clear as to my purposes. And yes,
> I certainly don't need another exchange like our last one
> either! Whew!
If you keep asking the same question over and over, you should expect to
get the same result over and over. I don't see how you can expect
anything different from your repeated postings.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:40 MST