[extropy-chat] Politics and possessing the right ISM

[Brett Paatsch]

Spike writes:
 
> > Brett Paatsch
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics and possessing the right ISM
>
> ....all I mean when I say "I believe" is that
> I *think* this comment or notion is true, but I might
> be wrong and so I am open to further evidence and
> reasoning to the contrary.  Hmmm, perhaps you have
> a point there Brett, for this definition of "I believe"
> is almost exactly opposite to the religious definition
> of "I believe".

The message a rational  person in a democracy sends
when they choose or rather fail not to choose the words 
*I believe* is not what the majority of voting proles who are
mostly believers of the other sort hear. 

Guess who is setting the policy in free open western societies
where one person roughly translates to one vote Spike? 

It is *real* hard to pursuade majorities in democracies with
hard arguments at the best of times because complexity 
makes them drowsy.  Every bit of advantage that can be 
gained by differentiating ourselves (as reasoners) from the 
non-reasoners in a political process needs to be seized upon.

Otherwise guess what bud, the proles vote not on what you
*think you said* but on what they *think they heard* and
they think they heard "beliefs-on-one-hand" vs "beliefs-on-the
-other hand" and maybe you'll hear them mumbling  "what 
was all that guff about therapeutic cloning or a persons right-
to-use-cryonics-in-a-free-society-if-it-harms-no-one-else again 
- actually don't worry about it, it probably wasn't important. 
By the way senator did you hear that great joke about what
Adam said to Eve? I luv telling them jokes to my Pastor!".
 
Regards,
Brett