Logos01 comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - Less Wrong

-4 Post author: Logos01 30 November 2011 03:34AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (100)

Comments (100)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Logos01 30 November 2011 03:52:03PM * -2 points [-]

But it is the case that talking about whether to torture a person makes torturing someone more likely.

Citation, please? I have seen evidence that this is true of actual instances of torture. I have also seen evidence that this is true of cases where a person has written "I will torture". I have never seen evidence to support the idea that discussing the notion of torture causes rise in the rates of torture-incidences. (I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you do not mean this in the 'magical thinking' sense.)

None of this is a reason to decide that suffering does not add linearly. And that's the only interesting question in the hypo.

None of that is relevant to the question of linear vs. logarithmic quantification of suffering, yet they are all questions raised by the hypothesis -- a direct falsification of your claim of that contrast being the "only interesting question" in the hypothesis.

. And everything you say about choosing to torture is just as true about choosing to dust-speck,

How do you figure? I am unable to conceive of a way for this statement to be valid. Enlighten me.

In short, you seem to want to avoid the question of linear-suffering entirely.

What? I seem to want nothing of the sort. I even allowed for the stipulation of linear-additive suffering as a means of demonstrating that it was uninteresting to the topic at hand; the argument by myself that the refusal to acknowledge the non-immediate consequences of either option was grounds for invalidating the answers thus far given.

That's why the criticism of "getting out of the issue" could have any bite at all.

Please stop using that phrase. It's putting words into my mouth and they just are NOT applicable to me or my argument whatsoever. It is patently dishonest of you to keep doing that.

Just stop.

Comment author: TimS 30 November 2011 04:08:20PM * -1 points [-]

Cites

Any solution to the question which ignores these elements . . . are of no value in making practical decisions -- they cannot be, as 'consequence' extends beyond the mere instantiation of a given choice -- the exact pain inflicted by either scenario -- into the kind of society that such a choice would result in.

As a general trend if we accept one form of action as opposed to the other we are reducing the threshold towards its being repeated. This is akin to the Broken Window Theory: what was permitted once may be argued more permissible in the future due to said permission.

See, e.g., the conventional wisdom that the show 24 made implementation of torture more politically feasible.

Look, people keep telling you that you are trying to fight the hypo. You admit the essential elements of this charge. That's fine with me. Some hypothetical questions are not worth engaging.

Comment author: Logos01 comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: Logos01 30 November 2011 04:30:09PM -3 points [-]

Cites

You quote me, yes. I recal writing that. How in the world do you extrapolate from those words to a citation of the idea that merely discussing torture makes it more likely? You'll have to walk me through it slowly; the logic by which such a conclusion is reached escapes me entirely.

, the conventional wisdom that the show 24 made implementation of torture more politically feasible.

Humans react to depictions of actual torture in a manner similar to the thing itself being real. Furthermore, the show was itself a positive argument for torture. So it's no surprise then that it would have that effect; positive arguments -- if accepted, and mere popularity is a form of acceptance -- do tend to cause the things they argue for to be treated as valid.

That's not even remotely similar to what we're doing here.

You admit the essential elements of this charge.

Look; I already once asked you to stop with the dishonest conversational tactics. What, exactly, made you believe that going on from there to link to a comment by me and claim that I said things in it that I absolutely did not say would be acceptable?

Why do you feel it necessary to do this? What is your purpose?

Look, people keep telling you that you are trying to fight the hypo.

Yes, and in doing so all of you thus far are in fact doing exactly that to me. You reject, universally, the notion that secondary consequences are still consequences and then claim that by pointing this out I am the one who is 'fighting the hypothesis.

This is simply untrue. I have come to a conclusion that is not accepted here. I have justified and argued for that position extensively. No one has offered, as yet, anything resembling or approaching the resemblance of a valid reason why all consequences should not be considered as consequences. I have requested that this be done repeatedly -- all such requests have gone unanswered.

I am, based on this, sufficiently justified in asserting that I am the one who is correct and all those with that reaction are the ones in error -- that's how evidence works, after all.

Logos01 comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (100)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (100)

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