> >Also you run the risk of making a martyr of him, and giving the public
> >the impression that you're just trying to blame someone else for your
> >own problems (ie dying of cancer). I really don't think you'd get all
> >that much sympathy in the press.
>
> But by the same token, wouldnt the motives of the killer be up
> for memetic spreading?
Like I said, the media aren't going to report it the way you want it.
> and wouldnt they have a greatrer than 1 chance of
> secondary infection?
More than likely. I find the concept of a non-propogatable meme quite
unlikely, but that would be another thread. But if you remember that
most memespreading of major events such as this killing you're talking
of are done by the media, then you are open to their point of view, and
nothing else. The exact meme that you created will never be propogated,
and is more likely to be changed and manipulated before primary
propogation. With a capitalist sland on it, the killer will never be
regarded as you intended. Murder for memes is not a viable solution.
> On balance wouldnt the net effect be to the
> disadvantage of tabacco plc mind virus?
I don't think so, frankly. They've got a captive audience, and no one's
going to stop smoking because a tobacco king gets killed, and no tobacco
company is going to change their ways because of one incident. That's
the wonders of capitalism.
> If you disagree I would apreciate some supporting arguments. If you are
> open minded I would apreciate arguments for and against.
Oooh, trying to trap me into defeating my own argument? Why don't you
put forward some arguments /for/ my side then, if you're that open
minded.
--
Drakir
--------------------------------------------
"We are the New Breed ... We are the Future"
http://members.tripod.com/~Drahcir/
--------------------------------------------