Let me begin this reply with my first observation: When making attacks in
a public forum, if one does not wish them to be perceived as a direct attack
on someone, then one shoudl leave out pertinent personal details. Especially
names.
> I've been an observer and secret student of memetics and extropy related subjects for a while, admittedly from a more sociological than mathematical angle, and having been accepted as a member of this forum, there are a few questions I would like to pose.
Then pose your questions, and leave the gratuitous personal details out of it,
and youmight be taken more seriously. I am at the edge of my own personal self
control to remain at all civil to someone who would act as irresponsibly as you
have in this post.
>
> A similar misguided aplication of tolerance concerns violations against children. A child is by nature weaker than an adult, is however at the same time tomorrow's adult and therefore the future of humanity. Any violation against children therefore potentially disrupts evolution in a way that should no longer happen based on traits developed in humans. It is one thing for a lion to eat the pups of a rivalling male - but the fact of humans having transcended this need is part and parcel of their very humanity.
>
> What is my point? I know from personal research that several extropians or transhumanists are guilty of sexually abusing children ... as well.
And here we come to the crux of the problem withy our post, and apparently your
entire outlook. WHY did you feel the need to name a specific name, and then
additionally to attempt to tar someone else, with a spurious linkage at best
(... a friend...)? What exactly are you trying to prove? Attempting to claim
the moral high ground, or a particular axe to grind?
While we're in the mood for full disclosure, why don't you tell us what your
particular PERSONAL gripe is with the people you named? What is it that
drives you to at worst defame the good name of somoene in public, and at best
reveal tawdry detailsin such a way as to imply an inherent value judgement on
the part of the reader? Your accusations are rather vague as well - We need
not get into questions as to what you implied versus what may (or may not -
courts of the world are not infallible) have truly happened.
The ad hominem nature of this attack is unconscionable, and truth be told does
absolutley nothing for your credibility. As I asked previously, what is your
bone of idsagreement, your personal agenda, which you have so conveniently
forgotten to mention in your effort to discredit possibly two wonderful minds?
Is it political? Academic? A rivalry?
The accusations you make are serious indeed, and merely lodging those
accusations in a public forum gives them credence they shouldn't otherwise
have. Your attempt at social engineering shoudl be rejected, but given the
permanent nature of internet communications (this post may be archived in one
of thousands of locations, if not more, most beyond the reach of a proper
defamationa nd expungement order) the damage is incalculable - and irrefutable.
For example, I could alledge that not only you were a homosexual, but had
contracted HIV from a "paid companion" and knowingly passed it along to
acquaintances - Not that the former is bad, but it colors many people's
perceptions of you in a negative light. Now, these allegations are very much
unlikely to be true, but once I hit "send" this message is a matter of public
record.
>For obvious reasons as outlined above, I do not consider this to be their private business. But I have so far failed to see reactions or statements from any extropians on this subject, which I consider a moral omission.
>
> Any comments?
A few, as outlined above. And a couple more. I do not feel it necessary nor
even optimal to express my opinions of a private individual's actions in
public. How I react and choose to interpret someone's actions is MY OWN
BUSINESS an not that of any other group, including associates of the person
in question. This public moralization is one of the memetic structures that
should be stricken from society at large; its damage is incalculable.
As for my opinion in this case, since you so thoughtfully directly solicited
it:
You shoudl be ashamed of yourself. Crusader, go home to your minister, your
moral certitude, and your pettyminded moralism. We have no need of blind
moralists here.
>
> Please do not consider this post a flame, because it is not.
A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. You have crafted here the
most odious kind of flame - and you try a disclaimer such as this? When you
mature enought o know what your own words mean, then you are welcome back. I
for one will be selecting to ignore any further messages from one whose
itroduction is drivel such as this.
>It is a factual - though critical - inquiry, based on my sincere view that a subject's advance will be hampered by deficencies in credibility and trustworthyness of its exponents, and therefore deserves an honest answer. The future can not be approached without dealing with present issues that might bar the road to it.
This would have been a non-issue, most likely, for some time if not ever, had
you simply showed a measure of restraint. By making these allegations, you
lend them a credence that is difficult if not impossible to overcome. I am
brought to mind of Pat BUchannan's speech in 1992 to the Republican National
Convention in Houston, TX. His allusion to national guard members being used
to save the elderly membres of a nursing home from the encroaching flames and
"looting gangs of black Los Angelinos bent on destruction" is still cited
today as factual by many people, even though it has been widely refuted - by
the National Guard itself.
Either you truly wish ill upon extropianism and by extension upon
transhumanism, or you are truly ignorant of your actions ina greater
socio-psychological context. Either way, you are a fool.
And my apologies to others on this forum, who are used to a more civil kind
of communicationf rom me. I could not let this sort of accusation be left
without some kind of comment - especially bearing the mark of a "sociologist".
-Corey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:16 MDT