wedrifid comments on Cryonics Wants To Be Big - Less Wrong

28 Post author: lsparrish 05 July 2010 07:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (160)

Comments (160)

Sort By: Top

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2010 02:13:22AM 1 point [-]

Excuse me? You make both a moral and, more importantly, an epistemic error in your accusation. I take offence.

I am in no way morally obliged to persuade coerce others into cryogenic preservation. Even assuming that moral presumption it would still be a simple factual error to apply the label 'murder' to the action 'not expending considerable effort to persuade someone to freeze their head'. If you sincerely do not understand that distinction, go and read any serious analysis of a debate on abortion or euthanasia from last century. Then further understand the moral and semantic difference between murder and inaction by watching some batman begins: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

It is also high status and fun, in fact it is the very core of politics and debate, and misrepresent it as the nearest possible 'Bad Thing'. You may well have some moral and philosophical positions you wish to express, along the lines of encouraging over-responsible egalitarianism. But an accusation here of a 'nontrivial amount' of action towards 'murdering a person' is both a factual error and socially hostile. It is not something I take lightly.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 July 2010 01:48:40PM 0 points [-]

Would you react differently if one were directly discussing committing suicide? Would saying that you don't want Sam around indefinitely so don't mind if you don't convince him? Would that seem morally distinct? If so, why?

Comment deleted 09 July 2010 03:01:32PM * [+] (4 children)

Comment author: WrongBot 09 July 2010 08:12:43PM 1 point [-]

Regardless of whether "murder" was the most appropriate label to use here, you were expressing a desire for the life of another human being to end so as to save you a minor annoyance. This is a sentiment that I and your other critics (I presume) find abhorrent; that you have compounded your signaling of disregard for human life by suggesting that criticism on the internet is sufficient justification for "simple assassination" leads me to suspect that either your moral philosophy is fundamentally inconsistent or you are a sociopath.

Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 July 2010 01:47:19AM 2 points [-]

leads me to suspect that either your moral philosophy is fundamentally inconsistent or you are a sociopath.

Or, perhaps, that abstract anthropological discussion of the real use, and typical responses to, morality based social attacks are of interest to me. Far more interesting than signalling how naive and banal I can make my far mode moral philosophising sound.

The fact that you took 'assassination' out of the context of specific reference to various times and places, alongside 'challenge them to a duel' is significant. It made me think back, trying to recall whether you had previously made yourself an adversary. To understand what the conversation is really about.

or you are a sociopath.

This indicates that you don't understand how sociopaths behave. Sociopaths are among the very best at signalling their moral virtue. They take the usual ability of humans to keep their far mode moral assertions and near mode actions uncorrelated and they make it an art-form. In most cases they would actually find it extremely difficult to segue from inside a battle for moral territory into epistemic observation about how such games actually play out. Nature and entrenched habit would make that extremely difficult for them.

Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.

Where do you think the actual metaphorical bullets are in this conversation? Here's a hint: none of them have been fired based on bad argument.

Comment author: WrongBot 10 July 2010 04:52:30AM * 0 points [-]

The fact that you took 'assassination' out of the context of specific reference to various times and places, alongside 'challenge them to a duel' is significant. It made me think back, trying to recall whether you had previously made yourself an adversary. To understand what the conversation is really about.

Specific times and places are all well and good, but you said:

In various times and places better approaches to such situations have included: challenging the accuser to a duel, pressing a civil lawsuit for libel, public smear campaigns, Machiavellian political undermining or simple assassination.)

where the antecedent of "better" is "casual conversation" that "takes the form of questioning or the expectation of justification."

I won't speculate about what you meant by "better," but it sounds like a moral judgment to me.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 July 2010 01:04:45AM * 0 points [-]

I won't speculate about what you meant by "better," but it sounds like a moral judgment to me.

That meaning would make absolutely no sense in the context. It clearly means 'more effective'.

wedrifid comments on Cryonics Wants To Be Big - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (160)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (160)

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