fredagen den 6 april 2001 01:45 skrev du:
> Anders Sandberg wrote,
> > One problem is that a voice of reason might not be what they want.
> You may be right, Anders. However, I find people on this list too eager to
> jump to that conclusion.
Well, isn't this list exactly the kind of meaning-sharing community as I
described? Just because we are right and moral :-) doesn't mean that this
list can avoid the trap of rejecting opposing ideas without considering them
> One of the most difficult things for a human
> intellect to do is to discuss opposing viewpoints as if they are valid or
> real. The first instinct is too assume that the self is right and the
> other is wrong. Then natural next step is to assume the other must be
> stupid or lying about their position. Either way, it becomes deceptively
> easy to dismiss the other position as not worthy of negotiation.
> It is hard to believe, but I have found that almost everybody really
> believes in what they are doing. Even insane people rarely act randomly,
> but are actually reacting quite rationally to their distorted perceptions.
> Sure, people get caught up in politics, enjoy a good fight, and become more
> concerned with their ego than their goal. We sometimes have that problem
> here on this list.
If more people understood this, discussions would be much easier. But it
takes time to train, and it is hard to get rid of ingrained knee-jerk
defenses of one's view, whatever group (real or imagined) one belongs to or
one's conception of how the world is.
I agree with your post, with the possible exception of saying that animal
testing is evil. I prefer to view it as an ethically undesirable act in most
cases rather than to equate it with anti-value.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT