From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 14:15:21 MST
--- Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> One prerequisite for having a constructive discussion about a
> powerful topic is to be able to handle it on a high level of
> abstraction. When you know enough about a topic you can start to
> look at it from different sides. You can be abstract enough about
> it so that you become dispassionate.
On the contrary, the more you know about a topic, when that topic turns
on Objective Truth, the more likely you are to be very passionate for
the side which you are able to objectively, quantitatively, and
qualitatively determine is in the right. The opposition begins, more
and more, to look not just wrong, but foolish, naive, stubbornly
obstinate in their willful ignorance, and willing to believe anything
that agrees with their prejudices.
>
> Unfortunately people tend to debate many issues they *feel* strongly
> about, but do not *know* much about.
Those on the wrong side tend to *prefer* to continue to not know much,
because they have a constitutional intolerance for being confused by
the facts.
For example, I think I can demonstrate that I know more about the
aforementioned issue than anybody on this list, both in terms of
history, law, sociology, as well as engineering and crime statistics.
Because of this expertise, those who oppose my opinion on the matter
demonstrate a rather *SEVERE* hostility whenever the subject is brought
up in my presence because they are extremely worried about being
subjected to the facts which they find so unpleasant and dislike to
admit are real, because these facts so significantly illuminate how ill
informed, hypocritical, or unreasoned their own position is.
A similar debate occurs in our society with subjects like evolution.
Those who know the least about it are the most opposed to the concept.
With cloning, ditto. With stem cells, ditto. With cryonics, ditto.
Recently, I saw political hack James Carville on Crossfire Live
debating the second amendment. He said, "I don't think there is a 2nd
amendment right to own a gun, but I think it is a loser political
issue." He went on to describe how he enjoys hunting in his home state
and describes how he owns firearms both to hunt and to protect his
family. This sort of hypocrisy is tantamount to saying "I enjoy smoking
pot both for medical reasons as well as for personal pleasure, but I
don't think it's posession should be legal."
Those in the opposition dislike discussing the topic SPECIFICALLY
because they subconciously fear being proven wrong, AND having it
proven to their faces and in public how unpopular their fascist
attitudes really are.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST