From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 06:42:15 MST
0f801c1c55a$5d0f3210$140b640a@stellentied.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Simon McClenahan wrote:
>
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > But is it a con when the mark WANTS to be conned, any more than beating
> > a masochist can be considered abuse?
>
> I don't see the parallel you are trying to make here. Theists that are open
> to conversion can be convinced or persuaded to both another theism or
> atheism. Just because someone is open to change does not mean they are
> actively looking to change. In your analogy, if you desire to be conned,
> then you cease to become a mark. Your masochist analogy doesn't hold either,
> since you could consider giving the masochist a warm fuzzy hug can also be
> considered abuse.
I am not talking about converting theists. I am talking about offering
theists an extropic/tranhumanist interpretation of their preexisting
theism, an upgrade, not a change in operating systems.
A theist, under my analogy, is already a willing mark to a preexisting
theism. Rewriting the story of their theism while retaining its central
tenets, and leaving open the possibility of a new consideration of
tranhuman technologies, would not be converting them, or creating a new
con, it would merely be using memetics to engineer a new look at their
existing con, and providing an avenue for eventual exit from a theist
mindtrap.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:49 MST