Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
>>> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
>>> There was no other point.
> 
>> Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are trying 
>> to get others to act in self-destructive ways.
> 
>   Mocking for the sake of mocking is not constructive nor helpful. It only
> increases aversion between different groups.

Yes. I want to mock the stupid dangerous group in order that people who 
hear my mocking might avoid them, or recognise how silly they are.

> Is that really the correct way of doing things?

If I could figure out how to make the stupid dangerous group less stupid 
or less dangerous, that would obviously be the right way to go. In my 
experience, religion is illogical (in the mathematical sense of the 
word), so it's almost impossible to convince someone to change their 
religion with mere evidence. You have to get to the unreasoning 
emotional underpinning. Of the various ways to do that, mocking would 
seem to be the least damaging and easiest to control.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message