= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jtk3 comments on Offense versus harm minimization - 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 (417)
What would you think of Brits who could have their electrodes removed, but preferred to leave them in?
Personally, it would reduce my interest in being careful with salmon pictures.
Precisely.
To say religion is not a choice would be to imply someone is being forced into it against their will. If it is against their will, surely their offence over blasphemy is insincere?
By the same line of argument that we shouldn't slander one particular long-dead paedophile warlord because he has a legion of sycophants at his metaphorical feet, we shouldn't slander a large number of other people who have a similar following and will take the same offence. So when someone says something not-so-nice about Nick Griffin, or draws a funny cartoon of him, is it not just as bad?
Yes. Say the Brits had put the electrodes in their own brains and built up a tradition of shocking themselves if others produced and published drawings of King Arthur.
To me, that seems closer to what the muslims in question are doing.
And people would be a lot less sympathetic with my Brits than Yvain's, for good reason.
What if they claimed to experience benefits from the implants? For example, they might cure certain neurological conditions.
Would you then expect them to remove the implants or be jolted?