<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 1/14/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">Samantha Atkins</B> <<A href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <BR><DIV><SPAN class="q"><DIV>On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote:</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><DIV>Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to do with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> ie some things are beyond debate because we all know them to be true/false...<BR> Doesn't sound very Extropian to me. <BR> </DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Only to a complete subjectivist I dare say. </DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><DIV><SPAN class="q"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><DIV>The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking. </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> That has no bearing on whether someone who holds one of those 'absurd or evil' beliefs should be allowed to make a case.<BR> </DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>In what context? Free speech does not mean any particular venue has to make itself open to everything any member may say or write. </DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><DIV><SPAN class="q"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2">This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you admit that reality is more important than the maintenance of some fictional comfort-zone. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Arial" size="2"></FONT><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR></DIV></SPAN><DIV>I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people and organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they will be judged. Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind that your brains fall out is not "debate" or respect for reality. </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> You have just decided that some things are *not* to be debated - not just by you but everyone here.<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Groups have charters. They are not open to everything and anything. People have standards. Are you saying it is wrong that this is so? </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> I'm not big on the US definitions of 'tolerance' and 'respect' . Too often they mean unquestioning quasi-acceptance.<BR> In reality what they mean is that we allow freedom of expression for all parties, pro and con, and we respect the right of a person to hold 'absurd or evil' beliefs.<BR> </DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I accept everyone's right to believe whatever they wish. That doesn't mean I won't campaign to limit what they share of their beliefs in particular venues. I also have the right to judge them based on their beliefs ad the apparent quality of their reasoning and understanding.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><DIV><SPAN class="q"></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV></BODY></HTML>