[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.
jacob at appelbaum.net
Thu Apr 5 06:21:02 UTC 2012
On 04/04/2012 06:51 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> Thanks for the backhanded complement. I am not purposefully antagonizing
>> you. It appears that you are antagonized by my emails because you are
>> unable to actually speak honestly about the complex ethical issues
>> presented by accepting DARPA money.
> This is antagonistic. You are making assumptions without qualifiers.
> I don't appreciate that. Few people do.
I am stating that 1) I am not purposefully antagonizing you and 2) it
seems that you are antagonized by what I have written. You think that
this a matter of assumptions but I think that it is a matter of drawing
conclusions from what you have said directly.
>> You make assertions that are
>> frankly, false. It's hard to talk about this stuff reasonably when you
>> start by suggesting that DARPA isn't in the killing business. That's a
>> dishonest statement but it's also just ridiculous. It's even worse when
>> you suggest that it's off limits because we live in a democracy, so it's
>> all good! This is also ridiculous.
> I never said DARPA doesn't research ways to kill people. Please don't
> put words in my mouth. I said that is not their PURPOSE. Means are
> not ends.
It is the purpose of DARPA to enhance the superiority of the U.S.
military - you then stated without evidence that they use this
superiority to avoid conflict. This is an assertion you offer without
As a matter of philosophy, I'd like to take a moment and suggest that
the means are in-fact often the end in times of war. The process by
which one dispenses justice that ends life is in fact the end for those
killed by the process.
An interesting correlation is that I do not think that DARPA is evil and
horrible and bad and wrong in everything. I think that the ethical
calculus for this is complex but must start by discussing what is really
at stake, what really happens with DARPA and not giving them a free pass
because "they invented the internet" or something similar.
>> So you're not willing to actually admit that you're mistaken because
>> they do not actually include the phrase "to kill people" on that web page?
> Jake, I assume that I may be wrong every time I push a point into the
> public domain, and I expect to be corrected if I am. You do not give
> yourself that same opportunity and you are missing out.
I'm happy to admit when I am wrong. On this point, I do not believe that
I am wrong.
>> Solidly annoying Matt.
> That has not been my intention here. Sorry if I came across that way.
I'm honestly shocked if you are sincere here Matt. If you are - I just
have to say, my mind is fucking blown. I'll take it as sincere and go
All the best,
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss