= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multiheaded comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - 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 (857)
Anyone's ethics, including yours, must have a subgoal of aiming to influence others' behavior in some ways, in order to have consistency. If, like any decent person, you believe that violence in less extreme situations, especially for selfish gain, is unacceptable, you can't just fold your hands and say "Oh well" when others endorse such violence! Otherwise your morals in this regard become just an aesthetic choice for your private behavior, and not a consistent consequentialist position.
(It is likely that all humans do have such ethics. It is not actually a requirement for consistency.)
Hmm, maybe. Anyway, my point still stands; all of us, including Charlie, should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain; doubly so when it constitutes domestic abuse. To endorse or tolerate unacceptable physical or emotional violence is in itself immoral.
Does this statement also hold true for those who would vote themselves the tax dollars of others?
Spare me your hypocrisy; repeating the current Myths of our Age does not make you holy. You disgusting, malevolent hypocrite; I never suggested hitting a woman - I outright advised against it, as did the original blog post. I simply acknowledged - as did Ferdinand - that stupid women who date stupid men enjoy being hit by them.
People such as you - 'rationalists' who believe all the myths of our modern era - are precisely the reason that this community has declined since Eliezer's leaving, into obscure contests to post the most inscrutable mathematics.
Go comment on the Amazing Atheist's Youtube channel; you'll fit right in there.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/
It would be wise for some of the other participants to mind that advice, since I think Aurini started out in good faith in this debate.
Why don't you try applying the lessons of that post to your own thought process?
Um... he's being more loud about it? ;)
I don't think you understood my position in the above post. I don't approve of clippy using my atoms for paper-clips, yet I can't deny that for him that may very well be the rational choice. If that is the case it is hard argue that the regular meaning of the words "best for him" dosen't includes turning me into paper-clips.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
I don't think I understand why this particular post is down voted. Seems to be true to me.