= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
khafra comments on "Nahh, that wouldn't work" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
Good observation. Perhaps adopting the fanfic convention and using "colloquial!threat" and "Schellinger!threat," respectively, would do the trick.
Did you mean "Schelling!threat"?
In any case, it doesn't help much to talk about "colloquial!threat" unless it is understood by everyone what is meant by "colloquial!threat". I'm under the impression that some people here think that, for example, a sign saying "Shoplifters will be prosecuted" constitutes a threat, and some do not. Is it a threat to say, "If you hit me, I'll hit back"? What about, "If you don't give me your lunch money, I'll hit you"? If one is a threat, and the other is not, what exactly is the distinguishing difference? What about "If you sleep with that woman again, I'm filing for divorce"? Or, "If you don't buy a ticket, you can't see the movie in my theater?" Is it only a threat if the hypothetical death of the 'threatener' makes the 'threatenee' better off? Can someone threaten suicide? What is the distinction between a threat and a conditional promise?
Yes. For some reason, I consistently add an "er."
Edit: as I understand The Strategy of Conflict, a threat is a conditional promise which will make the both parties worse off, if carried out.
I was trying to find a counterexample to the "both parties worse off" part of that definition, but now I believe it is correct. Even in what at first appear to only harm one party, such as blackmail, if carried out, the blackmailer spent his bargaining chip.
However, what about cases such as "If you continue to approach me, I'll shoot"? What is the damage done to the shooting party? Assuming no legal retribution and no moral guilt, no loss of respect in the eyes of others, then is his loss the loss of amunition?
Well, if the shooter has absolutely no loss of utility done to him by the act of shooting, what'd be the point of warning the other guy in the first place? He'd just let him approach and then shoot him.
I see your point. Even if killing him would be a neutral result, and not killing him would be a positive, one still would make a sacrifice by shooting.
Good point.