From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23:18: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C298A37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7B343E72 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V6Hu128152; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310617.g7V6Hu128152@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:51 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > not tolerate it in others. This is where we disagree. I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. I claim you can't know that yardstick. > I personally believe that Dave is intentionally ignoring the fact > that membership in nominally open online societies is by way of > self-selection. It's irrelavent, yes. > The reason this is amusing is that he attempted to create a forum > in which his principles were also embodied in the nature of the > forum itself, and it failed. The failure arose from people who > attacked it... and which Dave has so far failed to recognize as > "trolls", in the same sense that he is asking everyone else to > accept, when he could not. It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Objects are defined subjectively. Since objects are defined arbitrarily, this gives rise to your arbitrary subjectivity. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message