From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 17:07:58 MDT
It's amazing how Samantha tried to twist and rephrase nearly everything
we were talking about:
> On Friday 25 July 2003 00:23, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Well, the real dynamic is that he perhaps indeed should yell
> > at you---because evidently some of his friends are of such
> > intolerant dispositions, that his security, safety, privileges,
> > or fortune may be impaired if he doesn't learn to keep his
> > mouth shut about some things. This is, of course, the true
> > unconscious message communicated to those we shout down (or
> > try to shout down): Beware---be afraid.
>
> I don't think the message to think twice or more before proposing killing 10^8
> human beings as a utilitarian value is a particularly bad message to send as
> a group. Do you?
The message was not to "think twice". The message was a
personal attack on the morality of the poster.
> > > If I say something truly stupid or despicable and a friend of mine,
> > > someone who I respect, reacts with obvious dismay and tells me quite
> > > strongly that what I've just said is dangerous, then I will take note.
> >
> > Yes. Exactly. Some ideas---alas even here---are just to
> > dangerous to speak aloud.
>
> Dangerous? Where is the danger of simply being told that one is on an
> appalling right bender and should get a grip? That is all the responses
> amounted to after all. I don't see any terrible danger or intellectual
> brutality going on there.
Do you want me to go back and find the damning quotes? Again,
you are trying to put an entirely different gloss on. I would
never speak of "intellectual brutality"---I was speaking of
character assassination and personal attack.
> Why is the floating of the notion that 10^8 murders might be
> of benefit something to be protected and respected in your mind
> while the horror and repugnance of people on this list is not?
Because the former was phrased in a constructive manner, and
held to the ideals of rational debate, and the latter did not.
Remember, *merely* expressing one's repugnance and horror again,
tautologically does nothing more than convey one's state of mind.
What is the purpose of "conveying one's state of mind?", asks
Lee rhetorically? Well (I answer my own question) to shock and
intimidate others into silence.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 17:17:05 MDT