Re: META: Dishonest debate (was "cluster bombs")

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 03:27:48 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Re: META: Time to enforce the List Rules!"

    Lee Corbin wrote:
    >
    > http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=56165;start=15
    >
    > Well, I do wish that Paul Grant was here to defend himself,
    > but (in another sense) it perhaps doesn't matter: how can
    > anyone read that post and believe that he is not supporting
    > Saddam Hussein? Paul certainly is defending him again and
    > again!

    Read the post carefully. Paul Grant is not supporting Saddam, nor even
    defending Saddam. He is pointing out that neither Saddam nor, for that
    matter, Bush, are exceptional from a realpolitik view of world history. I
    do not share that view of world history. I do not think that Saddam's
    actions are excused by the fact that many worse dictators have existed in
    history who have invaded on flimsier pretexts; the historical precedent is
    to me irrelevant one way or the other. Similarly, I do not think that
    Bush's actions are excused by the fact that many political leaders have
    done much worse things. Paul Grant, though, is simply stepping back and
    viewing the situation as a realpolitik-oriented historian might view it
    had it occurred a hundred years ago.

    People in the grip of blind patriotism who will go to any lengths, however
    irrational, to exalt Bush and vilify Iraq, will exaggerate the genuine
    difference that exists between the two, even though there is a genuine
    difference. No matter how evil Saddam is, it will always be possible to
    paint a picture of him that is even more evil than the reality. A
    scrupulous arguer must then attempt to dispel this picture, and, I
    suppose, be accused of "defending" Saddam. Of course it may well be that
    Paul Grant, in the heat of bipolarized argument, went too far in arguing
    and tipped the scales the other way. This should not be interpreted as
    any particular liking or support for Saddam, which is of course extremely
    unlikely in terms of prior odds. It is a consequence of polarized debate,
    in which both sides tend to go too far on whatever argument they are
    currently advancing. This is human nature and hence highly likely as an
    explanation.

    -- 
    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
    Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 03:37:53 MDT