You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

UnrequitedHope comments on Discussion of Slate Star Codex: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice" - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: Artaxerxes 28 March 2015 09:17AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (110)
Tags: star slate codex

Comments (110)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 March 2015 11:04:05AM *  -2 points [-]

Even if they think there's no right and wrong or whatever, they probably still want to live. Otherwise they would've killed themselves already.

More personally:

  1. I quite dislike and don't get the point about them being atheists. What's the connection?

    1. In addition to that, reductionally (Although perhaps statistically) there's nothing that says "atheist equals [value]". Perhaps statistically on anecedotally, but not reductionally. Unless HE (and only he, because that's what HE's saying. Because he's making the argument and that's what HE believes.) says anything about that (which he implies, but things can clear up with the right question) I don't see the point of mentioning they're atheists. If there's no reason to mention they're atheist, then why did he? Seems like a personal attack.

  3. Killing the children in addition seems entirely stupid because children practically always believe whatever stupid stuff you tell them. So they're basically killing someone who can't really make a reasonable judgement.

Comment author: gjm 30 March 2015 12:34:50PM 1 point [-]

I quite dislike and don't get the point about them being atheists. What's the connection?

The connection is that the whole point of Phil Robertson's spiel was a criticism of atheism and atheists, the idea being that because atheists can't get their moral values from God they don't, or shouldn't, or can't coherently, have moral values at all (and, allegedly, therefore aren't in a position to complain if their family is abused and murdered and they are mutilated).

That's all kinds of wrong, and Scott understands that; the only thing he's defending is one specific feature of Robertson's crappy argument that some people have taken offence at, namely its use of an unpleasant thought experiment in which awful things are done to an atheist and his family.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit