From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 05:29:27 MDT
Wei Dai wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:43:10PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
>
>>It strikes me as bizarre that you would respond in your "open
letter"
>>to Gina in such a superficially friendly and open way, but
completely
>>ignore the main issue of contention between you. If you were
actually
>>feeling as friendly as your tone suggested, wouldn't it be
honest to
>>openly address the issues which Gina has raised above?
>>
>
> I have to say I'm more sympathetic to Lee Corbin's situation
than you are.
> What if you were in his shoes? Suppose you came to the
conclusion that a
> very popular philosophical position is incorrect. After
explaining your
> ideas on the Extropians mailing list, you're met with
emotional responses
> expressing revulsion and distress and calls for censorship,
and trying to
> defend your ideas only seems to cause more emotional
distress. What would
> you do?
Wait a second. Who called for "censorship"? Expressing extreme
repugnance for an opinion is not a call for censorship.
What would I do? I have been on the other side when I expressed
opinions about 9/11 that many others objected to. I kept on in
that case because I felt that it was important that we look at
some other interpretations and implications of these powerful
and world changing events. I don't see how it is equally
important that we grant it may be rational to allow parents to
do whatever they wish, and even kill their children by not
passing laws against such behavior.
>
> I don't agree with Lee's ideas, but I don't think they
deserve to be
> buried under a barrage of emotional outbursts either. Let's
just discuss
> them calmly and rationally.
>
Emotiona outburts? Excuse me but exactly who are you to judge
other's honest responses in this manner? My "outburts" were
rational, idea based and emotional - full spectrum. Do you have
a problem with that? I was Spock for many years. It got very
tiresome.
If it had been a woman who came out saying that men are (with a
few exceptions) of less value than women and had given the same
lifeboat reasoning I am quite sure that she would be responded
to with a lot more than emotionally neutral reasoning! She
would most like be very severely flamed. In comparison, women
on here have responded honestly and from their hearts as well as
their heads but I believe with a lot less than venom than if the
shoe was on the other foot. We mainly have a lot of sadness and
dismay.
> I would like to challenge everyone here to avoid phrases like
"it churns
> my stomach to consider ...", "I'm nauseated by the thought of
...", or "I
> can't bear think that ...". I believe a simple "I strongly
disagree with
> you because ..." works much better to bring your ideas across.
>
Why should we? Our humanity including it "churing our stomach"
to consider murdering infants or raising our ire when we are
considered less because of gender or race is very important and
crucial to who we are and to building a future together. Some
ideas are not properly responded to at all if only responded to
in an intellectual manner. Responding in only an intellectual
manner gives the impression the subject is a legitimate
difference of opinion and both sides of the opinion are
respectable. How can one grant this when one side is saying
that one's entire gender is of less value and more questionable
because of its supposed greater conditioning? Some ideas are
not deserving of debate. In any case, saying how the idea feels
to you is just as valuable as saying what you think (outside of
this) about it.
Disowning feeling, especially when it is the feeling of people
targeted by prejudicial remarks and strongly effected by other
subjects such as the never ending "infaticide" thread, is
disparaging honesty. It is also in this case disparaging women
and women's tendency to not respond solely in a left-brain
fashion. It is in effect a claim that right brain and more
holistic responses are unwelcome. How can this help but add the
implication that women are only welcome here if they limit their
responses to left-brain, typically more stereotypically
masculine mode? This is an additional disowning aund
undervaluing of women.
It is wrong and you are seeing us respond to its wrongness.
Correct it if you value our continuing participation.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST