From: Mark Waser (mwaser@cox.net)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2008 - 19:59:59 MDT
>> You may remove the disputed clause .. or you may not. I prefer to remain non-committal regarding your insistance to declare my action UnFriendly conditional on my next declaration. I have not waited very long at all to reply, but feel that your repeated insistence may be construed as UnFriendly-ism - though perhaps not by me or those local members of our Friendly Society, but to a majority of the more Conservatively Friendly Citizens who are implicitly assumed by their nature to be Anonymously Friendly.
I shall then remove the disputed clause since you gave me the option. Actually, other people's view of what is Friendly and what is UnFriendly is *entirely* irrelevant. As long as you are comfortable with my declaration of Friendliness and believe it, then I *AM* Friendly as far as you are concerned (because apparently my declaration is enough of a contract for you to feel comfortable that I truly am Friendly).
>> Agreed: If nothing else, this self-referential meta-formalism is an amusing use of language.
It is self-reinforcing but it also has *major* implications in the real world. I am trying to prevent entities from performing horrible and unethical acts by convincing them (because it is true) that such actions are not in their self-interest. An excellent side-effect of my theory is that I find myself able to derive many (if not all) laws of ethics from it so that it actually provides guidance as to what is ethical and what is not.
If this truly works then l should have the ice-9 of ethics and it should solve a lot of problems. Can you provide a counter-example to my theory or clearly state why an entity should not volutarily convert or clearly state where it is not in an entity's best self-interest to be friendly or where an entity could remain friendly according to *my* formalism and still perform a horrible and unethical action?
Thanks again.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dougherty
To: sl4@sl4.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Friendliness SOLVED!
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Mark Waser <mwaser@cox.net> wrote:
Excellent! I will add a disputed clause to my declaration. I would request that you let me know when I can remove it. I would argue that I should be able remove it immediately since there is reasonable doubt that
a.. you are a Friendly entity because you yourself said " I concede that I have made both Friendly and UnFriendly declarations in the name of Friendliness and must (under the rules presented so far) demand that you retract your declaration of Friendly and simultaneously retract my own. I believe we have both been UnFriendly in our efforts to pursue a state of Friendly."
b.. you performed sufficient due diligence before declaring me UnFriendly (since you didn't communicate with me and attempt to resolve our differences, most specifically including the differences between our individual versions of Friendliness since you did not understand that you should not have made your demand that I retract my declaration according to my stated rules).
May I remove the disputed clause from my declaration? If you say yes immediately, then I will not insist upon a declaration of UnFriendly action (interfering with my declaration) be appended to your next declaration. If you say no (or wait unreasonably long before replying), I shall insist on such a clause (for a fairly short period of time since I'm such a nice guy :-).
You may remove the disputed clause .. or you may not. I prefer to remain non-committal regarding your insistance to declare my action UnFriendly conditional on my next declaration. I have not waited very long at all to reply, but feel that your repeated insistence may be construed as UnFriendly-ism - though perhaps not by me or those local members of our Friendly Society, but to a majority of the more Conservatively Friendly Citizens who are implicitly assumed by their nature to be Anonymously Friendly.
I believe I may further accept your definition of Friendly at considerable expense to all other relevant terms used in your declaration, such as; (un)Reasonable, Immediately, Insist, and Fairly Short Period. I will, however, grant that your positive reception of my previous post in this thread is indicative that you are a Nice Guy. :)
Thank you *VERY* much. I enjoyed this!
Agreed: If nothing else, this self-referential meta-formalism is an amusing use of language.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dougherty
To: sl4@sl4.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Friendliness SOLVED!
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM, <mwaser@cox.net> wrote:
The Friendliness Declaration
Hi, I'm Mark Waser.
I am hereby declaring myself to be a Friendly entity as of March 12, 2008. I have not knowingly/intentionally performed any UnFriendly actions since this date.
I have not previously been declared UnFriendly by any declared Friendly entity. I have not been requested to put any disputed actions or unintentional UnFriendly actions in this declaration by any declared Friendly entity.
I am Mike. I declare myself to be Friendly. (Yes, that's a completely ambiguous term, but I know it means when I declare it) I deem Mark Waser's declaration of Friendly to be hostile to my own definition of Friendly and therefor declare him to be UnFriendly. (again, I'm not sure what exactly Mark means by his use of the term or the significance of camelCase used thereupon) I hereby request a dispute resolution clause be added to the Mark's declaration of March 12, 2008 and further declare that the now defunct declaration no longer be declared.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT