From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 07:50:22 MDT
QueenMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> What transhumans represent, public-
> relations wise, through the messages they most
> prominently convey, was the concern, I believe,
> of the gun thread. Violence, through it's
> primitive and primal connotations, is a value
> that most so-called "advanced" civilizations
> move away from as they evolve. This appears to
> be as they become more rational, they use their
> reasoning powers instead of the testosterone
> surges to measure correct actions.
A person suffering from mental illness might feel
the urge to constantly open doors, but if you open
a door we don't consider you "mentally ill." In
the same way, why are acts of self-defence and
even (in some cases) premeditated murder
considered "violent"? The term violence, to my
mind is over generalised. I think we should make a
clearer distinction between the rational use of
weapons and the violent use of weapons (presuming
violence to be irrational and erratic behaviour).
I'm quite sure an advanced rational civilisation
is likely to still use weapons and "violent"
means. IMHO, killing someone who will cause a
great deal of trouble is a rational option.
> What the original post said about extropians
> (and any other sane, rational person) supporting
> *freedom* to carry a weapon - i totally support,
> but the claim that guns are somehow for
> discrimination, since you chose that word, it
> primarily carries the meaning "to differentiate"
> - "to recognize as being diferent" and violence,
> in all it's forms is something I believe a
> Utopian society can clearly, rationally and
> freely try to set itself apart from.
But first we need to understand the difference
between a rational act of self-defence (or
offence) and a violent attack. I support the
freedom to carry a weapon and the freedom to kill
by direct or indirect action.
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:16 MST