You are an interesting member of the ILP.
On the one hand, I can find no other that would reflect your views so extreme, that are very close to my own.
On the other hand, I think you take them to a level that’s absurd. In fact, that suggest to me if you really took them all to heart, it would be dangerous if we had ever met in person.
And then I imagine how I might seem to you.
Certainly, I think the ideals of modern society are quite corrupt. But then why am I caught in this insistance that technology is not just a utility, but an imperative.
Am I a technophile, blinded by my insecurities at human chaos? Or am I a visionary- who knows that technology is inevitable.
Are you a technophobe, so embittered by dumb life that you think we’re all better off away from stupid gadgets? Or are you one of the few realistic about the true condition- that we create stupid machines to avoid the animals that we really are.
You iconify the tribal and liberal facets of human nature, which awaken us from the pathetic lives of technological dependancy. I iconify the mechanical, the unnatural, facets that may one day live beyond us petty humans.
So I think it only ideal that we make some strong direct challenge. I wonder if you would agree to these terms . . .
Round 1: We each make an opening statement. Mine is why I believe technology should be pursued. Yours is why you believe technology should be destroyed. (I may have oversimplifed)
These posts can have between 3 and 10 separate examples for our ideal.
We also acknowledge views that we share.
Round 2: We reference each other’s statements.
Round 3: We make closing statements.
We can each post up to 10 pictures for visual effect.
Also, we choose upon a panel of judges we can agree on. One of our own choice, and one that we both agree on. I would pick Gib if he’s willing.
If you do not see my response soon enough, email a short phrase here (like 2 words) . . .
and that should get my attention quick.