Robert Bradbury wrote:
If I notice people making the second type of declarative
assertions in the future, without providing an efficient
method for determining its validity, I will <plonk> them
for demonstrating a lack of "personal responsibility".
We need to encourage the people on the list take
more *personal responsibility* for *how* they speak.
If people notice me misspeaking declaratively, please
feel free to <plonk> me as well.
Didn't the Navajo indians say there are no bad children, only bad behavior. But, maybe this is taking it too far for extropians. lol I did take a course in college about interpersonal communication, and you have shared one of the most key and basic concepts I learned there.
If we do not become more effective at promoting "wisdom"
and "intelligence", I for one am not going to want an
LOL!! Yes, a universe full of very powerful immortals who are cranky and rude just does not appeal to me! Courtesy and clear thinking will be just as important then as now.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 10:44:35
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>I'm annoyed over the recent hashing and rehashing of the
>"name calling" on the list.
>I cannot find any documentation on what is and what is
>not "proper behavior" on the list (if someone knows where
>this is, please let me know).
>I can however go back to the Extropian Principles --
>> 2. Self-Transformation - Affirming continual moral, intellectual,
>> and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking,
>> personal responsibility, and experimentation.
>I want to bring up the "personal responsibility" perspective
>here. There are proper ways and improper ways to pee in the
>Here is a *proper* way:
>"I feel that you are the weakest link".
>Here is an *improper* way:
>"You *are* the weakest link".
>The first takes personal responsibility for your "feelings".
>It is fine with me for people to "feel" almost anything.
>Getting ones feelings off ones chest from time to time
>may contribute to moral and physical self-improvement
>(through relieving stress). So saying something the
>first way may be considered extropic.
>The second statement makes an assertive claim and does not
>propose a any critical thought path or experiment that might be
>conducted to ascertain whether it is a valid or invalid
>statement. Given the highly subjective nature of the
>opinions we have of other individuals its highly questionable
>whether the validity of the statement could ever be determined.
>So such statements tend to be less than useful and quite
>unextropic (particularly if they generate dozens of additional
>Now, it is of course feasible, for example using current /.
>software, to create a site and subject such assertions to
>a vote. That doesn't make them true or false because as often
>happens on the TV show the results of a "vote" do *not* always
>If I notice people making the second type of declarative
>assertions in the future, without providing an efficient
>method for determining its validity, I will <plonk> them
>for demonstrating a lack of "personal responsibility".
>We need to encourage the people on the list take
>more *personal responsibility* for *how* they speak.
>If people notice me misspeaking declaratively, please
>feel free to <plonk> me as well.
>If we do not become more effective at promoting "wisdom"
>and "intelligence", I for one am not going to want an
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT