virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:41:36 -0400

David McFadzean wrote:
I wrote:

>>they have a better paradigm than what they had before. So overall, this
>>company feels, they are a net value, (and perhaps they are) even if they
>>advertize one thing, and produce another thing. Does this constitute

>Yes. Of course it depends what you mean by "fraud". In my message I was
>talking about fraud in the context of persuasion, but now you seem to
>be talking about fraud in the context of financial transactions and
>legalities (which is related by not identical).

This situation has to do with persuasion, as well. Neo-Tech persuades
people to use their paradigm instead of other mystical paradigms. Some of
their arguments are circular, yet some are reasonable. It's a "trojan
horse" effect, in which crap gets mixed in with some good information. In
this case, does Neo-Tech operate fraudulently, even if, overall, their
products might be a value to people, sort of like the way methodone is a
value to heroin addicts? And, if the writers at Neo-Tech didn't understand
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.)
--David R.