[ExI] Luciferian Murder?

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sat Dec 11 22:16:01 UTC 2021

Hi Adrian,

I have certainly failed to communicate on this. I apologize.

THE most important part of Canonizer is the "<Start new supporting camp
" link where you can start a revolution in what is only the currently
accepted majority consensus.

My hope for the ability to do this is exactly why we created Canonizer in
the first place.  I've worked tirelessly, pleading with any of the popular
direct perception bleaters to Canonize their camp.  I've responded to so
many of their bleating publications, seeking to meet them at conferences
where they present, making donations to earn the chance to sit with them at
the keynote dinner tables, and on and on.  But so far not a one has
canonized a naive realism camp.  To me, that is very telling of the quality
of the naive realism camp that only seems to thrive in the current bleating
tweetosphere where there is no Canonizer.

Are you subscribed to the extropolis list (CCed) for people who were
censored from the ExI list? If not, you missed the post where I pleaded
with Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>, to support the camp he was
bleating about, against my "AI can only be friendly
camp.  Their camp could sure use his help, as 10 years ago they were in the
lead, as you can see with the as_of value set to 2011
Perhaps if he'd contributed some of his new arguments, they'd be more
successful at converting new people than the current arguments for our
side, which continues to extend our lead?

Perhaps you prefer that bleating and tweeting method of doing things where
everyone posts the same half baked arguments over and over again,
converting nobody, just echoing around in all their polarizing bubbles?  Or
maybe  you prefer the hierarchical censoring stuff, as the ExI list seems
to espouse?   I promise you it takes far less work to just make a small
wiki improvement to a camp, than to post those same old half baked, often
mistaken arguments, again and again, forever in the current polarizing
tweetosphere.  It only takes one or two button pushes to get a camp
started.  You can then let everyone else take it from there.  No censoring
is needed on Canonizer, everyone gets a voice.

That helps to know that for you, even kill implies intent.  But aren't
there other definitions for that simple verb, to kill?  Aren't there some
that are just a label for a any action that results in death, regardless of
intent?  Would one of these definitions of 'to kill' work?  Could we expect
people to give us the benefit of the doubt, and select the best definition
(as intended) in this case?

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Even "kill" implies intent.  Can you think of a term that makes it clear
> that basically all such cases are done in complete ignorance?
> As to Canonizer - it's a similar problem, and similar to the one I have
> with most interpretations of Christianity (where Lucifer comes from).  You
> act as if the points of view ("camps") on your site are the only ones to
> consider.  (Yes, anyone can make another camp, but this takes a lot more
> work to do well and thus is usually not worth doing.)  Thus, on many
> (possibly most) issues, debates on your site start with false dichotomies -
> and there does not seem to be much if any outreach or research to try to
> find points of view that someone on your site is not already strongly
> promoting.
> You have demonstrated that you're just not interested in doing that sort
> of work: you would much rather debate and defend points of view than
> actively try to discover what, if anything, you're missing in any given
> case.  Perhaps you might respond that you are interested in this, then I or
> someone else would call BS, rather than commence research you'll just
> defend what you've done so far, and it'll be an aggravating waste of time -
> so I'd rather just not engage in that.
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Thanks, everyone, for all the helpful comments.  Especially thanks
>> Adrean, your examples which are especially helpful.  True, I hadn't fully
>> considered the definition of murder, and how intent is normally included.
>> Other's have balked at using the 'murder' term for similar reasons which
>> I've been struggling to understand.  But these examples of yours enabled me
>> to clearly understand the problem.
>> Would it fix the problem if I do a global replace of murder with kill or
>> killer?  Seems to me that would fix things.  I want to focus on the acts,
>> and the results of such, whether done in ignorance or with intent or not.
>> Also, I apologize for so far being unable to understand the problems you
>> have with Canonizer.  Would it help for me to ask you to not give up on me,
>> and give me another chance?  As I really want to understand.
>> I guess I'm mostly just asking if I am the only one that constantly
>> thinks about this type of "luciferian killing"?  I am constantly asking
>> myself if the actions I plan to do today will help, save more people, or
>> not help, killing more people in a luciferan way by delaying the
>> singularity?
>> Does anyone else besides me ever think like this?
>> Thanks
>> Brent
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> I have no desire to engage in your Web site (do not bother trying to
>>> convince me otherwise: you are unable to address my reasons for not wanting
>>> to do so, as you have demonstrated that you will not understand them even
>>> if I explain them again), but I can point out a flaw in your reasoning: you
>>> assume intent.
>>> Most - basically all - behavior that delays resurrection capability is
>>> done out of ignorance: the person is unaware of the concept of
>>> resurrection, at least in any non-supernatural, potentially-non-fictional
>>> form.
>>> Most - basically all - of said behavior that is not done out of
>>> ignorance, is done out of disbelief: the person is aware that some people
>>> believe it is theoretically possible but personally believes those people
>>> are mistaken, that it is not theoretically possible and thus that there are
>>> no moral consequences for delaying what can never happen anyway.
>>> There is either extremely little, quite possibly literally no, behavior
>>> that delays resurrection that is performed with the intent of delaying
>>> resurrection.  "Manslaughter" would be a more accurate term than "murder".
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:56 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> Fellow transhumanists,
>>>> We’re seek to build and track consensus around a definition of evil in
>>>> a camp we’re newly calling “Liciferian Murder
>>>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/114-Evil/3-Luciferian-Murder>”.  If
>>>> anyone agrees that this as a good example of evil, we would love your
>>>> support.  And if not, we’d love to hear why, possibly in a competing camp.
>>>> Already getting the typical blow back of polarizing bleating and
>>>> tweeting from some fundamentalists, but as usual, nobody yet willing to
>>>> canonize a competing POV which would enable movement towards moral
>>>> consensus.
>>>> Brent
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20211211/f57c1331/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list