>Yes, it is still fraud. Maybe we just need a better term without the
>connotations of illegality. When reason is out of the question I usually
>advocate fraud over force. I also think force is sometimes necessary.
The Neo-Tech people seem to think that they are in that kind of a bind, in
which it's a choice between fraud or force. They say they are trying to
create a more rational civilization, to prevent major holocausts and to
bring about biological immortality. In order to persuade massive amounts of
people to be more reasonable, they use techniques of cult leaders and MLM
scammers to get people's attention. For example, they use ads for making
more money, having "iron grip control over everything that moves", etc.
Then, according to them, after people respond to their ads, they offer
these people something of "value"--a more rational belief system. So, they
perceive themselves to be in a life or death situation, in which they must
use fraud, or else how do you convert the critical mass of people to think
like they do, so that there's a more rational society?
>>that there's a problem with circular statements, would that change
>>anything? (It seems possible to advocate bad information honestly while
>>overlooking flaws in it.)
>I'll answer with a question: is it still lying if I believe I'm telling
>the truth?
I don't think it's lying if you believe you're telling the truth. Lying is
not the same as making a mistake.
--David R.