= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Logos01 comments on Selection Effects in estimates of Global Catastrophic Risk - 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 (64)
Anyone interested in "reporting" me to local law enforcement need only message me privately and I will provide them with my full name, address, and contact information for my local law enforcement.
I am that confident that this is a non-issue.
Send to: logos01@TempEmail.net (Address will expire on Nov. 23, 2011)
What are you trying to prove, here? What's the point of this?
The demonstration of the invalidity of the raised concern of this dialogue being treated legally as a death threat, and furthermore the insincerity of its being raised as a concern: after a larger than 24-hour window not one message has arrived at that address (unless it was removed between the intervals I checked it, somehow).
This, then, is evidence against the legitimacy of the complaint; evidence for the notion that what's really motivating these responses, then, isn't concerns that this dialogue would be treated as a death threat, but some other thing. What precisely that other thing is, my offer could not differentiate between.
Or maybe, you know, everyone here knows it wasn't actually a death threat and has no desire to get you in legal trouble for no reason, but wanted to warn you it could be perceived that way out of genuine concern?
"As it stands your comment could be interpreted as a death threat. This is not cool and likely illegal."
Logos, you don't need to preach about utilitarian calculations to us. You have it the other way around. We don't condemn your words because we can't make them, we condemn them because we can make them better than you. ( Note particularly in this case the willful refusal to accept the counterfactual and the accusations of irresponsibility for "not emphasizing strongly enough" skepticism in reaching conclusions. )
No, what's going on here is something significantly "other" than "everyone here knows it wasn't actually a death threat [...] but wanted to warn you it could be perceived that way." -- those are mutually exclusive conditions by the way; either everyone does not know this, or it can't be perceived that way.
The truly ironic thing is that there isn't a legitimate interpretation of my words that could make them a death threat. I responded to an initial counterfactual with a query as to the moral justification of refusing to take individual action in an end-of-the-world-if-you-don't scenario.
In attempting to explore this, I was met with repeated willful refusals to engage the scenario, admonitions to "not be creepy", and bald assertions that "I'm not better at moral calculus but worse".
These responses, I cannot help but conclude, are demonstrative of cached moral beliefs inducing emotional responses overriding clear-headed reasoning. I'm used to this; the overwhelming majority of people are frankly unable to start from the 'sociopathic' (morally agnostic, that is) view and work their way back to a sound moral epistemology. It is no surprise to me that the population of LW is mainly comprised of "neurotypical" individuals. (Please note: this is not an assumption of superiority on my part.)
This is unfortunate, but... short of 'taking the karma beating' there's really no way for me to demonstratively point that out in any effective way.
I don't think I'm going to continue to respond any further in this thread, though. It's ceased being useful to any extent, insofar as I can see.