>Natasha:
>
>>>You see, just that Extropy is a cult
>
>>Frankly, Eric, I find your use of cult in describing extropy rather
>>annoying.
>This is obvious. Most Scientologists would probably also be annoyed
>when Scientology was called a cult by others.
IAN: Ouch! What a low blow!
>It is not my fault that cults generally have such a negative image.
>Certainly, "brainwashing, unswerving obedience,
>surrender of one's possessions" are not the attributes that make up
>a cult, although many cults have such features.
IAN: Erik, what your saying is illogical by the
very facts that you concede. Your trying to imply
that ExI is a member of a subset of cults that even
you admit does not exist. IF (a very BIG if) ExI does
fall into the set of cults (and by your standards, so
would any organization with a set of principles), it's
then a member of a subset of cults that does NOT inter-
sect with the subset of cults of which cults such as
Scientology are a member. However, as your reply to
Natasha proves, you are implying that ExI is a member
of the subset of "bad cults," even as in your latter
reply to me above, you admit it's NOT such a member!
So your case is both a fallacy (it relies on subset
membership that does not exist) and is contradictory,
since you both (a) concede that the membership is null
and yet (b) directly imply that the membership exists.
It seems to me, Erik, that your simply engaging in
gratuitous cruelty against some very good people.
You argue that ExI falls into the definitional set
of "cult," then note that it's not your fault that
"cult" has negative connotations, as if your just
an innocent bystander in this, and yet then you do
all that you can to rub that negative connotation
in a deeply as you can (as illogical as I've just
shown it to be), obviously, simply BECAUSE you
know it's hurting some very decent people. Why?
I don't know why you would engage in such cruelty,
but I would say that such persecution falls into the
set of "traits of bad cults." Since you most assuredly
hold some principles, and since they probably conflict
with ExI principles, it follows that not only is your
line of attack false, not only is it contradictory
(since the set membership implied, you admit does
not exist), but it's also a contradiction since
your attack falls in the set you erroneously
attempt to frame ExI as being a member of.
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
REV. ROGER WILLIAMS ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/roger.htm
________________________________________________________________