[extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Libertarianism and the Autistic Spectrum (fwd from fehlinger at un.org)

[Max M]

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>>Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Actually, he didn't. He was quoting somebody else.

I know, wrong quoting


> Aargh! You missed the point of James' missive.

I don't think so. Due to training and education "we" have a tendency to 
communicate using reason and logic.

Also we often find it hard to communicate with people using feelings and 
intuitions as arguments.

That is not a mild disease, that is an ideal to follow ;-)


It's like saying that a trained chemist and a homeopatic healer, with a 
2 week night school diploma, has an equal say in whether homeopaty works 
or not!

Many people will not like what the chemist has to say, and how he says 
it. And the chemist, most likely, will have little patience in hearing 
the homeopats arguments.

But that doesn't mean that the chemist is wrong.


> We bloody better straighten out our comm act, orelse we'll never get off the
> short bus. We'll also be able to better deal with diverse catfights on the
> list.


My problem is that they are using a very clever argument that is 
constructed in a way that cannot really be countered. Like:

"There might exist a strong correlation between people who are 
unstisfied with society, and those who want to change it.

They also believe that they are right and everybody else is wrong."

The first part is self fulfilling. Any group that wants to change the 
status quo consists of "fringe" people.

And how do you counter the argument? If you say they are wrong, you are 
proving them right, if you are saying they are right, the argument stops 
there.


> I'm not pointing at anybody particular, but there might be a potential problem.
> Don't shoot the messenger. Owch. It hurts.

I didn't. I objected purely to the content of the message, and the 
flawed thinking it represented.

I do agree however that it is a lot more fruitfull to change society 
gradually rather than crying out for revolution.

We would most likely appear a lot more reasonable to a lot of people if 
we could show single reasonable cases in todays society with a >H 
solution/attitude.


regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark