From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri Jun 04 1999 - 20:34:41 MDT
Date sent: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:24:08 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Cryonics propaganda...
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> dwayne wrote:
>
> > "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > > > I'm not into this "eye for an eye" thing, I think you should sort your
> > > > own shit out, and to that end I think you should avoid killing someone
> > > > wherever possible, and avoid harming them wherever possible, etc.
> > >
> > > I concur wholly with this. The thing you are overlooking is that it is not always
> > > possible now, is it?
> >
> > Sorry, I wasn't aware that we were meant to remain within the bounds of
> > the possible here.
>
> Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean besides an insult. Tell me, do you EVER read
> your local newspaper?
>
> > > > I'd rather a population heavily armed with tazers, say, than machine
> > > > pistols.
> > >
> > > I take the opposite view. Arming everyone with tazers that you know won't kill anyone
> > > will make people shock happy, preferring to shock first and ask questions later,
> > > because its easier than dealing with a confrontation and coming to a resolution.
> >
> > Hey, I'd rather be tazered by a drunk than your alternative.
>
> What you'd rather be tazered by a mean drunk without response than to shoot the bastards
> kneecaps off?
>
> > > Women will shock men at the end of a date cause they don't want to go through the
> > > unpleasantness of telling the guy to buzz off and risk a bad response to the
> > > rejection.
> >
> > a: your taste in women really sucks, dude.
> > b: what a load of shit
> > c: beats being machine-gunned.
>
> d: with debating skills like this, its no wonder dwayne prefers getting tazered to getting
> shot, since one or the other is probably highly likely in his future. ;)
>
> > > Making the consequences of employing force high forces people to deal with a
> > > situation as well as they can FIRST without resorting to any force, whether it is
> > > lethal or non-lethal.
> >
> > This assumes, once again, that people are always rational.
> > When people are prepared to behave like adults, as I said, then sure,
> > give em all tac nukes. But until then, I like the idea of a disarmed
> > populace. It's a nice place to live.
>
> It would be a nice place to live, if you could live in a society of irrational disarmed
> people that was governed by a government comprised solely by rational people. How likely is
> that?
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
About as likely as that every person would be a responsible gun
owner, even kids, violent criminals and the certifiably insane (oh,
that's a contradiction in terms; I guess we couldn't allow them in
our perfect everyone-can-bear world, could we?).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:59 MST