From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 04:02:58 MDT
Reason wrote:
>
> [Aside: you know, I really don't think anyone arguing back and forth in the
> past few days on this and similar topics really disagree on ethics/morals.
> It's all factual/societal-opinion-as-fact items that are being debated. Very
> similar to the current abortion debate. e.g. what is human, what is the
> value of a potential human, etc, etc.].
>
Some of us here apparently very much disagree on ethics and
morals or at least what should be a matter of social ethics - of
law. Some of us very much disagree on language equating infants
to animals and of "low replacement cost" and claiming women are
less valuable than men and more subject to some assumed huge
negative memetic influence. I don't consider that decent
coffee-table discussion and I certainly don't consider remotely
material I feel like slogging through on a list that is supposed
to be about (I thought) creating a bighly viable and wide-open
future.
Please do not pretend that some of the opinions expressed are
civilized or that they are just ideas and arguing points with
no practical ties to the real world. If the latter were true
then the dicussion would be even more pointless and twisted.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST