From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 00:14:33 MDT
Damien writes
> >See how Damien recently reacted to a suggestion by Robert :-)
>
> I'm not anyone's mother. My capital letter bark at Robert
I am glad I missed that.
> 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?'
That's a pretty dumb question! Like your probable remarks,
it does far more to connote a frame of mind (a rather
deplorable frame of mind IMO) than it does to advance
rational discussion.
> This is tricky, because I like Robert, he has been generous in his support
> of me,
Hah, hah! So *that's* why it's tricky. But for the personal
connection, I infer it'd be clear as day to you!
> But still, here's the analogy that springs to mind: you're all
> sitting around in the bar, various groups [see that!] 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 [NIG]---------?.
> Do freedom-loving folks smile, grimace, shrug, and turn back to their
> drinks?
Yes, probably grimace and ignore her.
> Do they invite him [Oh, sorry, it's a "he"] 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 -------?
Here is where your miserable analogy falls to the ground
the most rapidly. That idiot *screaming* in capital letters
on the walls of the bar resembles *not* Robert's reasoned
tone, but the certain person *screaming* in capital
letters at Robert!
How can you be blind to the obvious analogy?
> 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.
Here is a better analogy: you are in a bar having a very
polite discussion with highly intelligent people (read very
polite discussion with highly intelligent Extropians on a
forum) and after a long time, a young black woman says,
with no white people within earshot (read no North Koreans
contributing to our discussion) "you know, I have so had it
with white people that if I had a vial of a killer virus
that would just wipe them all out, I'd break open that vial!"
So what would you say to her? Scream at the top of your
lungs what an evil horrible mass-murdering racist she was?
Not I! Since she had been so civil, as appalled as I might
be by the actual *event* (not recommendation --- a distinction
I have no problem keeping in mind), I would continue in the
same tone, saying, "what would be accomplished by that?
think of the millions of *innocent* white people, what
logical arguments do you have for such an extreme view?,
do you really think that such a thing would be called for?".
(And in fact, I did address some remarks to Robert about his
proposal in that tone. I did not---and NEVER would---attempt
to make him feel like some kind of pariah.)
> Damien Broderick
> [only my opinion; I'm just here for the waters]
Well, please explain what else it could be besides
"your opinion". Logically, the alternatives scare
me---but then, I don't think that you are being
especially logical.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 00:23:12 MDT