From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 17:16:12 MDT
Samantha writes
> > I say that people's reason and experience should cause them
> > to conclude that they should obey even the laws they disagree
> > with, (fanciful exceptions aside, and it being understood
> > that one lives in a fundamentally democratic society).
>
> You utterly refuse to consider that your position is
> authoritarian nonsense even when extreme examples that have been
> presented to you are shown to be altogether too real. Just
> exactly what is your agenda? If you are serious about this
> position I would not find you a trustworthy neighbor in these
> increasingly irrational and litigious times.
Up till now, this has been a pretty solid exchange, but your
language waxes intemperate. I "utterly refuse"? Not at all.
I still have an open mind regarded this issue, and welcome
criticism.
Did you see where I gently corrected your restatement of my
position, where you had inserted the word "always"? Was I
wrong? Did I get some emails confused or forget something
that I wrote?
I haven't characterized anything you have written as "nonsense",
and I continue to participate in this thread because it is
interesting and because the issues are difficult. The extreme
examples that we've seen are some of those that involved AIs
who under unspecified conditions and histories have managed
some kind of take over, laws that were written to weirdly
single out a single person, and so forth. Perhaps you are
referring to our discussion of sodomy laws, and the various
laws aimed at homosexuality. I certainly don't think these
extreme, and are indeed suitable for discussion.
Next, you retreat to accusing me of having some agenda. I'd
really like to know what goes on in your mind and that of
one other poster who used to make this same frequent charge.
Surely you don't suspect me of infiltrating this list with
some malicious intent? What do you mean by that, anyway?
As for my being a trustworthy nature, well, I could fire
back that I'd probably not approve of your behavior on a
jury, or wouldn't recommend you to counsel young people
in trouble, or perhaps several other things. But where
does that get us? Do you really think that there was any
substance in your paragraph above? Are you making any
attempt to understand my point of view? (I assure you
that it is fairly common!)
In other posts, I gave reasons *supporting* my statement
above. Unless I missed it, you haven't attended to those
reasons. I'll be happy to repeat them, if you'd like.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:49 MST