= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on What is the most anti-altruistic way to spend a million dollars? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (93)
Given the declared forum rules of forbidding that advocation of violence I would judge this thread as violating them.
You are offering a budget that double the amount of what 9/11 cost. Yes, you need to be creative to get around the barrier of 100% legality but laws have their loopholes.
There is a difference between advocating something and discussing it.
I am unaware of any declared forum rules, can you tell me where I might find them?
There is the deletion policy...
Granted, this doesn't bar advocating violence in itself, but still.
Thanks for that link satt. I did not know that existed.
Amusingly, to me anyway, stating that I think that people who rape then murder children under the age of 13 years should be put to death would violate this policy. Certainly mentioning that you support the death penalty for a named convicted criminal who had not yet been sentenced would qualify.
My favorite line from the policy is this:
Yes, that's basically what I mean.
I am absolutely not advocating violence or asking anyone else to, and I am frankly disturbed that you read that into my question. But I have edited phrasing a bit.
Basically you can't think of a way to do huge damage while still not violating laws. That's exactly why we should not discuss in detail how to go about creating huge damage while not violating laws.
If the current set of laws is sufficient to prevent huge damage, then looking for loopholes doesn't risk huge damage.
If the current set of laws is insufficient to prevent huge damage, then how could anyone fix the problem without discussing it in detail first?
If no practical set of laws is sufficient to prevent huge damage, then we might as well try to delay the damage by all shutting up, but I don't think this third possibility is likely.
I like free speech laws. I wouldn't want to have huge censorship even if it prevents some speech that makes people come to harm.
Not so, I just believe that most proposals will in fact look relatively mundane compared to what people have actually done. For instance "Start a tobacco farm" could contribute negatively to many people's health, but it has several drawbacks (in terms of anti-altruism) in terms of the employment it provides, and the slight cheapening of a commodity.