A question: Is it more profitable for the advancement of Extropian ideas
and philosophy to adopt an attitude of overly polite conversion first,
rather than use language that gets blood pressures rising and minds
I would argue that a more profitable approach within the goal of getting
others to think critically about their held positions and beliefs is to
question the source and reasoning first, then move onto stronger
language if necessary.
Does calling someone a luddite (whether it is true or not) increase or
decrease the probability of converting them to a "better" mode of
thought? I'd be interested in hearing everyone's take on this, not just
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> "R. Harrill" wrote:
> > "Michael S. Lorrey" decided to attack again with a new round of inflamatory name calling:
> > Mike, here is Merriam-Webster's defintion of non sequitur...
> > "a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said"
> > It's possible you're so anxious to get me that you're not making enough sense for me to
> > responsibly respond. So I'm going to let the thread go and instead start a new one.
> Perhaps its that you have no ability to debate my points, and prefer to call
> them attacks specifically because you cannot answer them. Being able to label
> something a non sequitur requires that the recipient of the comment be able to
> think logically. What I am anxious about is to figure out why you, a luddite,
> would willfully subscribe to a known anti-luddite list, snipe the list with your
> unfounded luddite propaganda, and act all incredulous and surprised that people
> don't take up the challenge to quickly dispatch your ridiculous comments. Why
> would you, the agressor, complain that your are being 'attacked' when it is you
> who initiated the action? You sound like a terrorist holding hostages who shoots
> a hostage and tells the negotiator,"Now look at what you made me do."
> Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:57 MDT