From: Brian D Williams (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 13:27:38 MST
>Brian Williams writes:
>> I took your invitation at face value, and pointed out that my
>> (theoretical) children were certainly entitled to their own
>> beliefs/politics, and it was essentially none of my business.
>Actually you said,
>> Then clearly the intelligence enhancement was a failure, give
>> Greg Burch or one of his associates a call.
>> Like I said if he goes in for intelligence enhancement and comes
>> out socialist, sue the doctor.
I said both these things but they were not part of my statement
above, the quote from Kahlil Gibran was. Others had no problem
>So it seems that you reject the premise of the thought experiment.
>You think it is impossible that a more intelligent person could be
Back at you strawman, I didn't say that, I said:
>> But you also were making a claim, which you even tried to
>> defend, the notion that the smarter you are the more likely you
>> are to believe in socialism.
In other words I reject the idea that the more intelligent you are
the more likely you are to be a socialist, I did not say it was
impossible for an intelligent person to be one.
>Actually I said,
> It's not implausible: in fact in many of the most difficult and
>esoteric branches of science and mathematics, branches which
>require the highest levels of sheer abstract intelligence to
>thrive, Socialism and allied political philosophies are
It reads the same to me. Get I get a vote?
>I said that the thought experiment was "not implausible", in an
>attempt to forestall the very objection that you raised, which was
>that it was impossible. I am certainly not saying what you
>attribute to me, "that the smarter you are the more likely you are
>to believe in socialism." I was just trying to get past your knee
>jerk reaction in order to get you to take the thought experiment
I already pointed out I did not say it was impossible, lets go back
to what you did say:
>As should be clear, I was not making a claim, but advancing a
>thought experiment. Only the most ideologically arrogant would
>believe that enhancing the intelligence of their children would be
>guaranteed to make them follow the politics of their parents.
And the parents of a deaf child who insisted their child remain
deaf so they could continue to be limited to deaf culture would
also be guilty of being ideologically arrogant.
>My post was an invitation to consider how it would feel if this
>did not hold. Someone with a strong political ideology would then
>be put in something of the same position as the deaf parents
>today. They might even begin to feel some empathy for the deaf
>parents' situation, rather than the attitudes of contempt and
>scorn which Mike and others adopted.
They might feel the same and they would be equally wrong.
>Obviously I failed. Your ideology has successfully defended
>itself by keeping you from seriously considering alternatives. I
>congratulate it. It rides you masterfully. I hope the bit is
>comfortable in your mouth.
Conversation over... buhbye.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST