[ExI] Regarding Wickedness

[Harvey Newstrom]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:57 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> You seem to be way too brittle and inflexible here.  I can 
> imagine that someone with slightly different values from me 
> and a whole lot of experience that differs from mine might 
> really see salience where I see inconsequence, and see 
> inconsequence where I see salience.

I don't deny that people have different opinions and might believe they are
right while others are wrong.  But to selectively present the evidence, to
pretend that the opposing evidence doesn't exist, is misleading.  A truthful
person would actually present all the opposing evidence and their
counter-claims.  Propaganda only presents the supporting evidence without
addressing counterclaims.

> What we were just talking about is starred item number 3:
> the selective presentation of facts.

What part of "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth" do you
not understand?  Selective presentation of the facts is misleading.  It is
not truthful.  Such a presentation would be rejected as misleading evidence
in a court of law.  It would be rejected as misleading results by the
scientific method.  It would be rejected as a misleading article in
Wikipedia.  It would be rejected as a logical fallacy in a debate.  I can't
think of any criteria of "truth" that would condone such a selective
presentation.  I can only think of untruthful purposes for such behavior.

> Now I would be pretty
> angry myself, of course, if Spike, Samantha, and Eugen
> were killed by the neighboring group.  I fancy, though, that 
> even as angry as I would be I would somehow keep myself from 
> exaggerating. (E.g., calling them cowards.)

How is that "exaggerating"?  You reduce a tangible major charge (mass murder
of our friends) to a meaningless childish insult.  This is belittling rather
than exaggerating the situation, in my opinion.

> It is necessary to *validate* that anger, and the anger
> of your listeners. 

But why can't you do it truthfully?  If you have to be misleading or
dishonest to do so, I don't see how you can use the word "validate".

> Apparently you consider it factual that those who killed our 
> Extropians (in my example) are evil, but yet you don't 
> consider the regimes of North Korea, Iran, and the late 
> Saddam Hussein to be evil.  Why?

That's outrageous.  I never defended any of them.  I think you are
misinterpreting my doubt about "weapons of mass destruction" as being a
defense of these regimes.

--
Harvey Newstrom 
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP