[extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!Filmateleven.

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >> Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
> >> orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
> >> opinion one iota.
> >
> > The only way someone can move my opinions on something is to try to
> > convince me how their policy opinion adheres to my principles
> > closer than my own policy opinion.
> 
> Thats a pretty tall order for you place on anyone. They'd have to
> understand *your* principles and *your* policy first in order to get
> you to change your opinion. Presumably you would not change your
> statements if you had not changed your opinion, so your most exteme
> statements would just go out looking like flame bait and you'd never
> retract them, or am I wrong in this chain of reasoning?

I sometimes change my opinion based on new information, in that I tend
to be my own best devils advocate.

As one of my principles is to not initiate force, generally if I'm
flaming someone, it is what I see as a reaction, not an initiation.
Unless the instigator clarifies what they said (as Samantha did), the
flame remains just and stands.

> 
> > IMHO too much of the pro-abortion types, even those that claim
> > to be libertarians, tend to be of the same limited vision as
> bunkertarian
> > or nationalist libertarian types who too easily draw lines in the
> sand
> > beyond which they will not lift a finger to defend the liberty of
> > others.
> 
> >From what you say above it seems to follow that no one would be
> able to change your opinion if they saw you merely as a type and
> not specifically as Mike Lorrey, because you would just shrug it off
> and say, and think, 'hey I'm not just a type', I'm Mike Lorrey (and
> you'd be right). BUT then you throw types around so liberally
> yourself. You don't seem to cut others the same degree of personal
> slack that you demand they show you in order to change your view.

On the contrary, I give everyone an equal opportunity to categorize
themselves, or at least display their affinities and allegiances. My
own views are out there, on the net, on my blog, and have been
generally consistent and based on the same principles over a long
period of time. That I am Mike Lorrey and not a 'type' evolves from the
fact that I don't accept party dogma at face value but try to work out
my own opinions from first principles. This has obviously led to strife
between myself and some crypto-pacifists who've been trying to enforce
their orthodoxy on the  libertarian world.

> 
> You have known Samantha and me and others that post to this list
> to some extent at least for years. When do the statements of people
> you know get to be treated as statements by people that are not
> just types? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I'm just genuinely
> wondering.

Samantha tends to be a unique case because she has established a long
history of emotionally based statements that lack a rational footing.
Not all the time, mind you, as she is quite capable of rationality and
has demonstrated it, but on frequent enough occasion that it is
difficult to figure out without physically checking her hormone levels
how she is going to act or react to something, although I'm currently
99% sure that this statement is going to piss her off. That it needs to
be said to answer your question, IMHO overrides the demands of list
harmony.

> 
> > They lack the vision to see that those who blithely decide that
> > some people shouldn't live, given enough time to consolidate
> > and grow their power, will eventually turn their attention to the
> > line drawers who think their own position secure.
> 
> If you look at the above link and the ones around it you'll see
> that I went quite a distance with you (in terms of time spent
> and lines of your text I had to read to check out what you
> had to say, and I was happy to do that, but I didn't get much
> by way of concrete feedback when I asked for it, and in terms
> of you developing your ideas I don't know if much came of it
> for you).

Ah, well, I wasn't aware you were looking for feedback. I have been
under a bit of stress lately and haven't been paying too serious
attention to things here other than the semi-daily browse through the
posts. I appreciate you've gone a distance with me, and any lack of
feedback may indicate that I either agreed with you or did not disagree
strenuously enough to want to add to the debate.

> 
> This meant that I didn't know if I had wasted my time trying to
> talk to you or not. If I can never effect you enough for you
> to treat me as more than a type then why should I continue
> to try and treat you as more than a type?  You and I are mortals.
> We want to think our time spent and invested in others is not
> wasted, or at least I do. Aren't you the same?

Generally so, but I've been trying to not be so emotionally invested in
this list, because it has disappointed me so frequently in the past. If
that is seen as detachement or disregard, I apologize.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com