🚀 go-pugleaf

David C. Wright <wrightd@magic.mb.ca> wrote 
[...]
> So, if merely noting or referring to something
> constitutes 'information', then Hoffsess is surely a horrible
criminal.  On
> the other hand, so am I, and so are you, because we have both
noted that a
> plastic bag can be used to augment suicide, and we are as
guilty as he is.
> 
> If you are prepared to abstract information to that level,
then you are
> grasping at straws.  At that level of abstraction, I would be
a murderer,
> because I have presented the means by which it could be done. 
Never mind
> that I've never actually *hurt* anybody. If second-level
indirection is
> enough for an endictment, then I'm guilty of all manner of
things that I've
> never done, simply because I've considered them, or discussed
how it could
> be done.  Hell, I've robbed the Royal Canadian Mint, because
I've discussed
> the means.  Never mind that I've not actually taken anything.

I think a relevant point is touched here, especially in relation
to (promotion of) euthansia.
One should realize that "merely referring to something"
constitutes "information" indeed (assuming the reference is made
with a certain goal) isn't it?

Of course that does not mean that one is a "horrible criminal"
or "a murderer" or that one "robbed the Royal Canadian Mint" by
discussing certain means.

But it *is* worthwile to be aware of the fact that (the way in
which) mentioning things *has* effects on the spreading or
acceptance of ideas etc. indeed (be it like of little drops
filling the ocean), isn't it?


-- 

==============
Rik van Dongen
Rotterdam
==============