Is this thread silly enough to persuade you to put the thread creator on ignore?

[Boojatta]

Introduction to the question of this thread:

Have you ever read or seen any science fiction story involving a person causing a machine to self-destruct by speaking with the machine? I'm not referring to a fictional machine that was designed to have a self-destruct mechanism actuated by means of a spoken password. The machine converses like a person. A real person might converse, lose an argument, and get angry. The machine converses, loses an argument, and reacts by self-destructing.

Suppose that a politician believes that most voters are unreasonable and that they aren't as sophisticated as they consider themselves to be. In effect, the politician believes that voters are like machines who have secret passwords that even the voters themselves aren't aware of. The passwords won't cause the voters to self-destruct. However, the politician believes that the passwords allow him or her to control the voting behavior of voters.

We then get a situation as bizarre as the above science fiction scenario. The politician interacts with people the way that a computer hacker interacts with computers. However, the politician just uses words. For example, the politician doesn't even try to use hypnosis or drugs.

The question of this thread (not to be confused with the poll question):

If the politician genuinely wishes to make gradual reforms to create greater justice and carefully monitors his or her impact to avoid violating anybody's rights, then would it be unethical for the politician to use the general approach that I described above? (This question is to be discussed and not to be voted on here.)

[wtmusic]

1. Not a fiction but a real phenomenon

"Hot button" words do allow politicians to control the voting behavior of some voters.

Is it ethical for pols to manipulate the electorate in this manner to achieve goals?

Yes. Anytime a politician speaks her choice of words will be subject to interpretation. As long as she is not lying, the onus is on the listener to see through colorful language to the crux of the matter.

The thread is not silly, but the poll is.

[But....]

2. Would have voted for #4....

but I've got no problem with fluff:evilgrin:

[Winnipegosis]

3. Suppose that politicians believe voters are just morons

....

[Nihil]

4. Other ...

... it just makes me wish the thread creator would **** off to the Lounge
instead of cluttering up R/T with random attacks of pointlessness ...

Hey, you asked! :shrug:

[Boojatta]

5. When you're browsing in the DU Lounge, you don't have the opportunity to read this thread.

Is that a serious problem for you?

Does the fact that you consider R/T to be an inappropriate place for this thread imply that regular participants in the DU Lounge will agree that the DU Lounge is an appropriate place for it?

[ZombieHorde]

6. Bwahahahahaha!

[Silent3]

7. Mango chutney

Parenthetical malaise, like a cool breeze, without heartache.