One 'so what?' is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of 'bad person' involves philosophy I've never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.

Comment author: brazil84 comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 21 February 2010 02:04:45PM * 5 points [-]

I have no idea what your point is

We have been there already. In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim "I am willing to talk to dissenters" EXCLUSIVE-OR "me blocking dissenters is not relevant". I don't really care which you do but you're doing both. That's an AND not an XOR.

My more specific point is that this behavior is highly undesirable to me and I want to discourage it.

I could; you could; anyone could. Again, so what?

I don't believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me. Sincerity is a hard skill to master, at least at the higher levels of contradiction.

Comment author: brazil84 comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

brazil84 comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (221)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (221)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login