<html>
<body>
At 08:42 PM 6/27/04 -0500, Damien wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>>Robert Bradbury is the
quintessential "DEVILS ADVOCATE."<br><br>
A devil's advocate is someone assigned the unpleasant task of
investigating what is claimed to be *good*, *admirable*, *emulable*
behavior, and disclosing any corrupt hidden aspects. It is not someone
who *proposes* diabolical behavior.</blockquote><br>
Here is my encyclopedic definition: "One who argues against a cause
or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of
argument or to determine the validity of the cause or
position."<br><br>
I thought Robert was arguing against the world accepting terrorism and
terrorists by proposing *his* personal view - to kill them all.
Does the Devil's Advocate have to be investigating something that is
claimed to be good on its surface but is really bad? Can the
Devil's Advocate investigate something that appears to be bad on the
surface and is actually bad?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>>He is known for his ability to
push the envelope to get people to think.<br><br>
That is often the case with Robert's scientific posts, which is why I and
others enjoy reading them. However, the world does not need any
provocation to think that, hey, maybe mass murder is a really great idea.
This is what the critics of Robert's post (and its similar predecessors)
have been pointing out. Whether mass murder would provide all kinds of
useful advantages and spoils to the murderers is simply not a discussion
worth having (outside a criminal gang, a psychiatric asylum, or a
posturing group of spotty, resentful teenagers). Indeed, it is a
discussion worth stopping as quickly as possible.</blockquote><br>
Yes, Robert is quite remarkable about his scientific posts, and why I
read them too.<br><br>
I agree with you that the thread was frightful, and it got people to
think about how very appalling it is.<br><br>
N<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Despite that, I wish Hubert had
expressed his (partly justified) indignation in a more focused
way.<br><br>
Damien Broderick <br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat" eudora="autourl">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Viner Hand ITC" size=4 color="#000080">Natasha
Vita-More</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#0000FF">
<dd><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/" eudora="autourl">http://www.natasha.cc</a><hr>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times">President, Extropy
Institute
<a href="http://www.extropy.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.extropy.org</a>
<dd>Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/" eudora="autourl">http://www.transhumanist.biz</a></font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><a href="http://www.transhuman.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.transhuman.org</a>
</font>
</dl></body>
</html>