RE: State orders Cryonics Institute to stop freezing bodies

From: Randy S (cryofan@mylinuxisp.com)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 16:12:58 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Sullivan: "Re: g**gle is also a calculator"

    Jeff Davis <jrd1415@yahoo.com> said:

    > --- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal@smigrodzki.org> wrote:
    > > Anders wrote:
    > > > Hmm, is it just my swedishness, or are the tone of
    > > these letters a bit
    > > > aggressive? Also, pointing out that cryonicists
    > > are technologically
    > > > sophisticated and using the Galileo card sounds
    > > downright cultish.
    > > > Especially in the US I have the distinct feeling
    > > that suggesting that
    > > > religion is a superstition is not on average going
    > > to predispose
    > > > people kindly. Could it be that we are reacting a
    > > bit too reflexively?
    > > >
    > > > Maybe the core issue should be stated more calmly:
    > > yes, this is a
    > > > practice some people see as pseudoscience or
    > > yukky, but almost any
    > > > practice, be it cremation, the use of antibiotics
    > > for appendicitis or
    > > > acupuncture is viewed as pseudoscience or yukky by
    > > *someone* (or even
    > > > most people). That still does not mean it should
    > > be hindered unless it
    > > > actually hurts somebody. A society which cannot
    > > tolerate diversity and
    > > > unusual ideas is going to end up impoverished and
    > > intolerant.
    > > >
    > > > I wonder if one could get some of Richard
    > > Florida's ideas about how
    > > > the creative class moves in here. Essentially, if
    > > a place like
    > > > Michigan shows that it does not tolerate the
    > > unusual (by banning
    > > > cryonics and tounge splitting) it sends a signal
    > > to many of the
    > > > cultural creatives that increasingly form the core
    > > of economic growth
    > > > that this is not the place to be. It does not
    > > matter that most never
    > > > would even consider getting a suspension or split
    > > tounge, they know
    > > > that their own particular interests or views might
    > > be circumscribed
    > > > and that the area is less likely to attract other
    > > interesting people
    > > > - so they go elsewhere. Is that a desired signal?
    > >
    > > ### I fully agree with the above (maybe it's my
    > > Polishness). There is no
    > > need to antagonize an official who may not be
    > > totally an enemy, and even if
    > > he is, sounding too strident is in bad taste. By all
    > > means, those who wish
    > > to contact Hollister on CI's behalf should try for a
    > > reasoned if firm tone,
    > > along exactly the lines of Ander's thinking.
    > >
    > > Rafal
    > >
    >
    > I'm mostly in agreement with Anders and Rafal, but....
    >
    > It has been my experience that when rationalists use a
    > measured rational tone when confronting emotionalists
    > or politicians, the latter
    > interpreting this as weakness, are emboldened, and the
    > former get eaten for lunch. The essence of political
    > professionalism is to be polite even
    > while they slip the knife between your victims ribs.
    > Now, I am aware of how inflammatory this sounds, but
    > frankly I'm pissed. And I think that sometimes it is
    > necessary, as Shakespeare said, to:
    >
    > Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
    > Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee.
    >
    > I'm perfectly thrilled to have all the silly people
    > with their favorite silly belief systems frolic to
    > their hearts content. I'm even ready to stand in
    > solidarity with them to protect this right. But I'll
    > be damned if I'll stand idly or POLITELY by while they
    > strip me of the same rights, even to the point of
    > marching me into the grave or cremation chamber.
    > There is a time for "aggressive", and when that time
    > comes, sooner--as in "nip it in the bud"--is better
    > than later.
    >
    > Now, regarding my letter being used as a template, I'm
    > flattered, but I think that idea should be discarded.
    > Natasha asked for a template, but
    > frankly, my letter ain't it. It has all manner of
    > flaws for such usage, not the least of which is that a
    > slew of similar letters would look like some kind of
    > cultish activism with me as the cult leader, and I
    > really, really, don't think we want to go there. I
    > know I don't. But as I said, if you find some useful
    > bit in any of my ranting, feel free.
    >
    > If you want to do a good cop/bad cop whipsaw on this
    > Hollister creature, I'll be happy to be the bad cop.
    >
    > Finally, what I find astonishing and particularly
    > infuriating are (1) that Hollister may be using the
    > Cryonics Institute as a "soft target" for his personal
    > political advancement, and (2) that the underlying
    > "religious" fanaticism that fuels this whole business
    > is --un-flippin-believable-- the religion of,...wait
    > for it....
    >
    > ***!!! BASEBALL!!!***
    >
    > I'm sorry.
    >
    > I gotta die for flippin baseball???!!!
    >
    > Hold me the fuck down--pardon my French-- 'cause I'm
    > seriously gonna be losin' it.

    Can I get a WITNESS!?

    -- 
    --------------
    -Randy
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 28 2003 - 16:24:14 MDT