>>1) What possible extropian/ transhumanist merit can this pointless slanging
> What's the point of living forever if you live in a totalitarian
> state? It seems that we do not want merely a higher QUANTITY of life at
> any cost, but a higher QUALITY of life as well, no?
I was refering to the abuse rather than the discussion.
>>Times change, and laws must
>>change with them. To advocate extropian beliefs on the one hand, and
>>dogmatic adherence to a quite clearly imperfect constitution on the other
>>hand seems somewhat at odds to me. But excuse me if I am stepping on your
>>constitutionally protected toes here, I mean no harm, I'm just curious as to
>>how you can rationalize this.
> Exactly what parts of the constitution do you think we should discard
> as being outdated? The freedom of speech? The right of people to assemble
> peacefully? The freedom of religion? The right, when accused of a crime,
> to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation, the right to
> a speedy and public trial? The right to be secure against unreasonable
> searches and seizures? (which is not respected by federal law enforcement
Now you're just being facetious, my argument is that times change and society and its systems need to change also, in order that previously unforseen situations can be dealt with, appropriate legislation drawn up / debated as the need arises, and outdated (meaning no longer relevant or appropriate) legislation must be seen as such and must be allowed to be adapted (or discarded) as the need arises.
> The constitution is not America's problem. The problem is that with
> every year America deviates more and more from the ideas and ideals set out
> in the constitution.
Exactly. See my previous point.
>>As for the merit of this discussion on the list, is it something along the
>>*I'm looking to the future, but I'll shoot you if you get in my way.
>>*Well, shucks ma, the end times are a-comin', let's arm ourselves to the
>>teeth and head for the hills.
> Don't tell me that you have never heard of self-defence? Or perhaps
> you regard self-defence as morally reprehensible? It seems that
> self-defence doesn't really have anything to do with the constitution
> either. I'd be in favour of self-defence even if it were
> un-constitutional. It's a matter of ethics.
Self defence? Have you never heard of humour?
> A concerned non-American (involuntary non gun owner. Give me liberty
> and I'll get me a 1911 in a jiffy. Obviously, I hope I would never have to
> use it against people, but to me it seems preferable to have a gun and
> never needing it, to needing a gun and not having it).
Craig. Involuntary non-gun owner and perfectly happy about it.