X-Message-Number: 16553 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:14:24 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Replies to Olaf and Mike On 16 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16551 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:57:16 -0700 > From: Olaf Henny <> > Subject: Bigotry > > I have never met a bigot, who recognized him-/herself as such. > They all just state "what is right and obvious". No point in > holding a mirror in front of their faces. They won t see it. A prime example of this is what I call "homophobophobia".The instant someone expresses an opinion of homosexuality that is something other than total, uncritical acceptance,the "homophiles" declare that person a "bigot"...whether the person merely favors marriage laws staying as they always have been,or wants all homosexuals and anyone who looks kindly upon them tortured to death,doesn't matter,the person is a "bigot" and not to be listened to. Diversity of opinion on this matter is something they can't stand. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16552 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:06:17 -0700 > From: Mike Perry <> > > >From: Louis Epstein <> > >...> ---------------------------------------------------- > > > From: Mike Perry <> > > > Subject: diversophobia > > > ... > > > Though not homosexual myself, I strongly disagree with those who consider > > > the condition in some intrinsic way deplorable. > > >...And I regret refusal to face the functionally deficient > >nature of sexuality directed toward persons of one's own sex. > > As Kennita Watson points out (#16546), celibacy too is "functionally > deficient" (thus also "deplorable"?). As far as the functional deficiency > issue is concerned, though, I don't find sterility intrinsically > deplorable, either, since not everyone wants to have children. And clearly > the whole issue is gradually becoming moot as we are discovering other ways > to produce offspring (by cloning as a start, though no doubt more than this > will be possible). Sexual reproduction is a way of keeping life going when > said life is ignorant and mortal, but we are hoping for better than this, > aren't we? We are hoping to be immortal, but to me part of immortality is a degree of immutability. If you can't avoid changing your basic nature your survival is no longer genuine.(Hence,"uploads" can no more be humans than we are the tree rats of 75 million years ago that we are descended from). In this case,it's a matter of "if you can't do it right,don't do it at all"...neither is "doing it right",but if there are genes for the deficiency,you're doing your part by not passing them on. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > From: Deathist Lurker Girl <> > > > >...> However, a major stumbling block to me is the seeming lack of a warm, > > > welcoming community of cryonicists who seem genuinely interested in > > > "evangelizing" cryonics, *yet at the same time* are respectful of the > > > rights of others to decline their chance at immortality. The overall > > > approach being something like, "You're fine just the way you are, and we > > > accept your right to make your own choices, but we have something we think > > > is very desirable, and we'd like to tell you more about it..." > > > >When you're trying to get the attention of someone floating along on a river > >that is headed for a monstrous waterfall,I don't think a soft sell is going > >to do it. > > And I agree with this. I think that DLG has good intentions, but > identifying as a "deathist" (we don't know your real name) is tough on us > who value the opposite of deathism so highly. Actually,I located her real name and replied to her by it,and she admitted to it in her response. You didn't notice that exchange? I suppose the allure of mortalism is that it's "normal",and accepting it is held up as a sign of maturity. The cardboard coffin crowd have a website, BTW: http://www.naturaldeath.org.uk/ (They have some points,but not on duty to rot!) Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16553