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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 5, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> 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.
>
>

Gee I guess it must be in the eye of Mike Lorrey that your e-violence  
is perfectly justified.  Maybe it would be better to find out what  
was meant first before dropping the verbal nuke.



>>
>>
>>> 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.

What a strange construction.  It appears to say that you give  
everyone an opportunity to be slotted into  your system of pigeon- 
holes.   That you grant yourself individual uniqueness outside such  
characterization but not others.

>
>
>>
>> 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.

In this latest exchange it was you who came out with emotional guns  
blazing.  After dropping a nuke or two you then calm down and explain  
if not your position then how your actions were justified.  Maybe you  
despise in me what you are most uncomfortable with in yourself.

> 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.

I don't enjoy third person dissection especially by someone  
manifestly incompetent to do so.

- s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/d6003082/attachment.html>