X-Message-Number: 29736 References: <> From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: alternative venue for political debate Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:28:54 +0200 On 15 Aug 2007, at 13:00, John de Rivaz wrote: > "Fred C. Moulton" <> calls for political debate > to be kept off cryonet. There has been quite a lot recently on > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LongevityReport/ Drs Stodolsky and > Harris have presented arguments on either side. To call this debate is miss leading. While opposing views were presented, you can't say a debate is taking place unless one side responds to the other. In the case above, Harris responded, but his assumption of what I had said was just the opposite of what I, in fact, had clearly stated. That is, I said, "Read X to understand Y." Harris then said, "Stodolsky says there is no way to understand Y." This 'debate' was permanently terminated when I set my mail program to place all future mail from Harris in the Trash. Another exchange had a similar outcome. If the libertarian ideology appeals to you, then you can find like minds on the above List. If you seek debate, it is not the place. > The method by which society raises the money for pharmaceutical > safety testing (charging early adopters) is not good at present, > and needs to be changed. No one has suggested anything which may > work, however. There is an old story about a neo-classical economist walking down the street. Seeing a beggar in raged cloths siding on the sidewalk, he says, "The system isn't working!" Then a marxist economist come by, sees the man, and remarks, "The system is working." Within the economic framework that dominates thinking on the above List, there is no solution to the "problem". That is, "The system is working." I posted some reference to books on ethics that would allow a solution to be formulated. This was, apparently, lost on the audience. So, another case of a failure in debate. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29736