From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 21:58:11 MDT
At 05:04 PM 7/24/03 +0200, JDP <jacques@dtext.com> wrote:
>You know, it's really like in a family. Someone says something, and
>the mother says: "Don't say that!"
>I am sure it was common in the ancestral tribe, too.
>See how Damien recently reacted to a suggestion by Robert :-)
I'm not anyone's mother. My capital letter bark at Robert when he raised
nuclear genocide as a possible rational and *morally preferable* option was
the revolted reaction of a friend who, out of politeness, did not wish to
say publicly what Eliezer said: `Are you autistic?'
This is tricky, because I like Robert, he has been generous in his support
of me, I've learned a lot from his published papers, and any apt analogy I
might offer is bound to be offensive. But still, here's the analogy that
springs to mind: you're all sitting around in the bar, various groups
conversing or singing at various pitches of intimacy or boisterousness, and
someone known to the company comes in and starts spraying one wall, using
liquid excrement, with words such as HOW ABOUT LYNCHING ALL THE ---------?.
Do freedom-loving folks smile, grimace, shrug, and turn back to their
drinks? Do they invite him over, still reeking, and begin a reasoned
discussion about how best to lynch all the -------, some judiciously
raising the alternative position that perhaps it might be preferable, all
costs and benefits taken into account, *not* to kill all the -------?
I agree that Robert was not *advising* anyone to murder 10^8 human beings,
nor would his advice have any force with those so empowered if he *had*
urged that course rather than just raising it for consideration. Not the
point.
Damien Broderick
[only my opinion; I'm just here for the waters]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 22:06:51 MDT