Eugine_Nier comments on Cleaning up the "Worst Argument" essay - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Yvain 06 September 2012 12:09AM

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

Comments (57)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 September 2012 04:29:58AM 1 point [-]

Only one of those things has the explicit goal of killing people, and it's the only one I'm arguing against here.

You're equivocating between "killing innocents" and "killing people". Stop it.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 September 2012 04:36:52AM 2 points [-]

The equivocation is also false as stated; the military frequently has the explicit goal of killing people.

Comment author: Kisama 07 September 2012 12:47:42PM 0 points [-]

I was going to give military an honourable mention but I didn't want to make my comment any longer than it already was. Yes the military frequently does aim to kill people, but not always. Capital punishment is defined as putting someone to death.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 September 2012 01:35:25PM 0 points [-]

OK.

Comment author: Kisama 07 September 2012 12:27:07PM -1 points [-]

If you don't kill any people, you won't kill innocent people. If you do kill some people, you might kill innocent people. Where is the equivocation?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 September 2012 02:19:50AM 2 points [-]

If you don't drive cars, you won't kill innocent people in auto-accidents. If you do drive cars, you might kill innocent people in auto-accidents.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 September 2012 03:32:59AM 0 points [-]

Well, I can cause fatal auto-accidents even if I'm not driving. But certainly my odds of killing an innocent person in an auto accident go up quite a lot if I drive a car.