From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 16:02:43 MDT
Humania Commented:
> To M. Dickey, J. Clark and Ron h:
>
>
> I refuse talking or discussing with anyone of you any of your arguments,
> especially those of Michael Dickey, in detail. It would be a
> complete waste
> of time for both sides. Our views are not compatible.
I dont think it would be a complete waste of time, but so be it. I and
hopefully John and Ron will still criticize your comments as we see fit, and
especially point out where we reasonably deem them to be detrimental to
human kind and non-extropic. But seeing as John, Me, and Ron are the only
people who responded to your comments, and you clearly state you will not
respond to us, you are effectively stating uneqeuvocially that you will not
listen to objections to your stances, and will be ignoring (at least in the
case) the only people who responded to you. So I wonder yet again what your
reason for posting is. If it is preaching to the choir, that does not seem
productive, if it is to change others minds, your tactics, as I have noted,
are also not productive. If it is to merely spew emotional reactions to
current events, again, probably not productive.
Are you that sure that absolutely everything you believe is 100% true? I
dont think anyone on this board (eh, mailing list) is that sure, especially
those who have studied for greater periods of time than either of us.
Personally I find the extropy mailing list a good place to have ones ideas
critiqued. Recently I posted some comments on restructuring the US tax
system, Lee Corbin immediately and justly pointed out why this particular
suggestions was a bad idea. I suggested that localized stem cell injections
could replace the majority of organ transplanting, and Robert Bradbury
pointed out some reasons why that may not be the case, etc. etc.
Considering that, do you beleive that your worldview is a 100% accurate
description of reality? Surely you believe things today that you did not a
few years ago, and surely you will believe somethings to be different a few
years from now. The trick is trying to pick what those things might be, and
never being too over confident in your current understanding. Much like
standard scientific reasoning, everything is held to a level of provisional
certainty, and I believe the same standard of scientific reason can be
readily applied to many questions of history, ethics, and politics.
I only want
> to remind
> you from time to time that your violent world view still looks
> disgusting to
> a freelancing transhuman -
Thats find, but I would remind you that your apathetic pacifism is digusting
to a transhuman and extropian, such as myself. I would remind you that you
stated your main reason for opposing the war was to not give sanction to
Bush's future actions, instead of judging the action itself as moral or
immorral, you judged what possible actions bush might committ in the future
as immorral, and reversed judged everything else.
but not necessarily *extropian* - guest here on
> this list who thinks the whole entropic side effect and expenditure of
> blowing away heat and sweat into the universe in the process of
> bringing up
> some non-violent arguments that the patriots here finally do not
> appreciate
> anyway, is in itself a pretty unextropian process of
> communication.
You do not bring up arguments, as I have noted. Most people on this forum
welcome well reasoned arguments, I have yet to see you present one. I and
others have outlined in previous posts a bulleted list of reasons why the
Iraq war was just and extropian, and invited you to counter the points.
Instead you respond with comments like "and-White-House-dominated thinking
in union with adrenalin-aided visualisations of smashing those Middle
Eastern bastards which amplifies the already existing territorial bullshit
in your brain" Where is the argument?
like
> territorial pissings with funnily talking Arabs who stubbornly
> deny wearing
> blue jeans and display this strange effeminate outfit while unexpectedly
> rejecting the American way of life altogether,
As you might have noticed on this list, Mez, whose family is egyptian, has
explicitely stated that most arabs indeed welcome American culture. This,
in fact, is a primary thing that makes fundamentalist islamicists so irate.
Imagine a conservative radical islam jihadists emotions when he sees a clean
shaven arab youth sporting a leonardio decrappio haircut with a burqua-less
girlfriend singing celine dion. Your comments reflect an ingorance of the
issue at hand, we are not trying to cram American culture down reluctant
Arabs throats, most Arab people like many aspects of American culture, and
would freely choose to embrace if not ruled by corrupt despotic regimes bent
on melding their cultural habits one way or another. Americans could really
care if middle eastern kids are getting Decrappio haircuts, but a lot of
middle easterners care a great deal about that.
could it be that your
> Pentagon- and-White-House-dominated thinking in union with adrenalin-aided
> visualisations of smashing those Middle Eastern bastards which
> amplifies the
> already existing territorial bullshit in your brain and - in
> connection with
> an artificially produced feeling of helplessness and lack of security -
> evokes a cry for a Rumsfeldian solution and thus leads to an endlessly
> intensified vicious circle of astonishingly flexible ancient lizard brain
> circuits that spread the message towards the cortex to merely defend
See, how is this statement productive? You produce no arguments whatsoever,
only spew emotional venom that is a crass charachterization of mine, and
probably Ron and John Clark's motivations and concerns. I am the one making
an effort to understand your arguments, you are making no such effort for
us, and instead resort to this rubbish.
Regards from the Kill Files
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 15:57:12 MDT