RE: Time.com asks you to vote for most dangerous country

From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 11:57:02 MST

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: Time.com asks most dangerous country"

    -----Original Message----
    From: humania@t-online.de

    Humania, I am sure you are an intelligent compasionate and interesting
    person, so I am confused about your statements in this message, which to me
    seem morally repugnant, corrupt, intellectual dishonest, counterproductive,
    and anti-extropian to the extreme.

    You said

    "Call me what you will or think of me what you will. I will not engage in
    mind games about better or worse superpowers anymore. I am sick of being in
    the position where I must justify my peace loving attitude. This is
    absolutely ridiculous."

    When peace loving attitudes of the past have lead to the worse mass murders
    in humanities history, you can rightly expect those of us with knowledge of
    these historical events to challenge your attitude that 'peace loving' is
    automatically a moral high ground. I love peace as much as you I am sure,
    despite what you may think, which is why I want to see it for all people,
    even the people in Iraq, and north korea, and Iran, and china, and and and
    and... Your attitudes sentence the people who were born in areas not as
    political free as yours to lives of oppression, murder, and slavery. That
    is NOT peace. That is NOT extropian. That is NOT transhuman.

    "All of you, who are so war horny today, YOU (plural) are the ones who
    should ask yourselves if you still have anything to do with transhumanism. "

    And you should ask yourself that as well, as you sit idly by while millions
    live in oppression and murder. Not only do you sit idly by, you oppose
    efforts to eliminate it. Is that transhuman? Are efforts to stop such
    travesty also against the promotion and well being of humanity, technology,
    and progress? Considering these regimese endorse the exact opposite of all
    those, and kill thousands or millions in the process, I find it difficult to
    understand the justification for your stance.

    "No power has the right to attack a country even if a monster of a dictator
    rules there. The US/UK junta is going to ignite a world fire pretty soon and
    the supporters of war among you know it."

    This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read as yet.
    You are essentially endorsing the existence of murderous governments,
    inaction is morally no different then support. It is attitudes like yours
    that forbade the US from involving itself in the Cambodian holocaust, where
    ultimately more than 2 million people were killed. A monstrous dictator has
    no right to be a dictator, and his country has no right to exist under his
    rule. Your moral concepts are strange and internally inconsistent, they
    seem to only be comprised of 'lets just all get along!!!!' It would be nice
    if we all did, but some people out there prefer to murder and oppress than
    to get along, and fighting them is a moral cause. I find you absolute black
    and white rule of "No power has the right to attack a country even if.."
    absurd, new agey, and not grounded in any reality I know of, except one that
    endorses that lack of one.

    "Love, Peace, Over And Out"

    No one is free unless everyone is free.

    Michael Dickey

    LEGAL NOTICE
    Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 13:27:31 MST