|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland22746 Posts
On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small.
This illogical component, that we’re not simply informational sponges that morph with updated information is precisely the problem with the ‘marketplace of ideas’ in practice.
This is further compounded by the very structural fabric of modern information platforms. If the whole commercial underpinning incentivises bad information and psychological manipulation is baked into it.
Bloody tricky problem, not sure what one does to mitigate it!
Just for a bit of fun, what illogical views do you USPol regulars have? I think the one that most irks people that I hold is that whatever your accent is, that’s your nationality. I know identity is much more complex, and it’s a daft position, but that part of my brain kicks in when say, I hear one of Ireland’s gold medal Olympians interviewed and annoyed my Irish partner with a ‘he’s bloody English, listen to him!’
|
On August 28 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small. This illogical component, that we’re not simply informational sponges that morph with updated information is precisely the problem with the ‘marketplace of ideas’ in practice. This is further compounded by the very structural fabric of modern information platforms. If the whole commercial underpinning incentivises bad information and psychological manipulation is baked into it. Bloody tricky problem, not sure what one does to mitigate it! Just for a bit of fun, what illogical views do you USPol regulars have? I think the one that most irks people that I hold is that whatever your accent is, that’s your nationality. I know identity is much more complex, and it’s a daft position, but that part of my brain kicks in when say, I hear one of Ireland’s gold medal Olympians interviewed and annoyed my Irish partner with a ‘he’s bloody English, listen to him!’
Props for the self-awareness of your own shortcoming. A lot of people might not be aware of their own illogical views, or not consider their views to be illogical even if others say so.
|
On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small.
I expect the idea is to moderate the ideas, not the people. You have a footnote on the Steve Jobs tweet saying "There is no scientific evidence proving that this cures cancer", not "We banned Steve Jobs because he had problematic ideas about cancer".
|
On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly.
You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/bc0c38e0442cf659652c47d9272213af.png) You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life.
I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense.
|
On August 28 2024 07:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly.
You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? I didn't say it was less bad or more bad. The reason is because he is actually willing to answer the question. If you actually just said "no I wouldn't flip the switch to kill 1 person even if every Jew was on the other side of the tracks" I might think thats kind of messed up but mostly my sentiment would be to not really give a shit and move on - same as when Uldridge said what he said. It's the fact that you seek praise from some unnamed court for being the "least sus" while refusing to acknowledge that the necessary consequence of "never" flipping the switch is that you would allow all the Jews to die if they were on that side of the tracks. If you just had the spine to simply acknowledge the consequences of your inaction in that hypothetical then I would stfu.
You're shifting the goalpost every time. I'm talking about murder, not about protection against an aggressor. The trolley problem has no aggressor. If people are being rounded up and put into gas chambers, you'd be within your right to kill the abductors. Defending someone else's life against an aggressor is not considered murder under the law.
|
Northern Ireland22746 Posts
On August 28 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small. This illogical component, that we’re not simply informational sponges that morph with updated information is precisely the problem with the ‘marketplace of ideas’ in practice. This is further compounded by the very structural fabric of modern information platforms. If the whole commercial underpinning incentivises bad information and psychological manipulation is baked into it. Bloody tricky problem, not sure what one does to mitigate it! Just for a bit of fun, what illogical views do you USPol regulars have? I think the one that most irks people that I hold is that whatever your accent is, that’s your nationality. I know identity is much more complex, and it’s a daft position, but that part of my brain kicks in when say, I hear one of Ireland’s gold medal Olympians interviewed and annoyed my Irish partner with a ‘he’s bloody English, listen to him!’ Props for the self-awareness of your own shortcoming. A lot of people might not be aware of their own illogical views, or not consider their views to be illogical even if others say so.
Shortcoming? :S It’s everyone else that’s wrong!
|
On August 28 2024 09:24 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small. I expect the idea is to moderate the ideas, not the people. You have a footnote on the Steve Jobs tweet saying "There is no scientific evidence proving that this cures cancer", not "We banned Steve Jobs because he had problematic ideas about cancer".
This is one idea. Deleting posts and banning users for repeated wrong ideas was also in practice at Twitter afaik
|
Northern Ireland22746 Posts
On August 28 2024 09:24 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no? I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything. If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small. I expect the idea is to moderate the ideas, not the people. You have a footnote on the Steve Jobs tweet saying "There is no scientific evidence proving that this cures cancer", not "We banned Steve Jobs because he had problematic ideas about cancer".
I like the community notes approach for most things, especially if they are complicated, genuinely debatable or pretty trivial in terms of the import of the topic.
I’m absolutely fine with nuking content that is both unequivocally untrue and liable to be dangerous. Swing that ban hammer at repeat offenders by all means.
And I think people should be able to hold repellent views, otherwise it becomes a ‘who moderates the moderators?’ scenario. Plus it tends to make people resentful and retrench them into their position if it’s a matter of not being able to hold or voice certain opinions, as opposed to being told why they’re perhaps mistaken to.
Restricting it to more measurable ‘is this statement true?’ I think gives you a framework that is actually implementable.
It’s quite the raw topic in the UK recently given extended periods of rioting and targeting of the Muslim community (or frequently other brown people mistaken for it), sparked off by a completely untrue spreading of the tale that the background of a murderer was Muslim.
It was not, and is was clearly being seized upon by people looking for fuel to push their anti-Muslim views. The only consequence of this is going to stoke more anti-Muslim sentiment, to whatever degree.
In that particular scenario, I think it’s more appropriate to just nuke it at source, as far as such a thing is possible. People did try the community notes route, but at that point the fire was already burning pretty hot.
If someone wants to say they think there’s too many Muslims in the UK I mean, yeah that’s a shitty bloody viewpoint, but falls within the shitty opinions category rather than the shitty facts one.
Godwin’s Law holding as it always does, I always found it quite curious that by far the more common ethical thought experiment is the classic ‘if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler?’ over the ‘why didn’t they just put a gag order on the bloke?’
|
On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it.
Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense.
So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life"
Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive).
I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular.
This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant.
|
On August 28 2024 10:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it.
Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? I didn't say it was less bad or more bad. The reason is because he is actually willing to answer the question. If you actually just said "no I wouldn't flip the switch to kill 1 person even if every Jew was on the other side of the tracks" I might think thats kind of messed up but mostly my sentiment would be to not really give a shit and move on - same as when Uldridge said what he said. It's the fact that you seek praise from some unnamed court for being the "least sus" while refusing to acknowledge that the necessary consequence of "never" flipping the switch is that you would allow all the Jews to die if they were on that side of the tracks. If you just had the spine to simply acknowledge the consequences of your inaction in that hypothetical then I would stfu. You're shifting the goalpost every time. I'm talking about murder, not about protection against an aggressor. The trolley problem has no aggressor. If people are being rounded up and put into gas chambers, you'd be within your right to kill the abductors. Defending someone else's life against an aggressor is not considered murder under the law.
I’m not shifting the goalposts. I’m rewriting the hypothetical as a favor to you because you thought it was unfair to include Hitler. So I changed it from Hitler to 1 random guy. But for some reason you’re still ranting wildly about people being abducted and sent to gas chambers? What? It’s clear you have no interest in participating in good faith.
|
It was never about arguing in good faith. It was wanting someone to agree and validate his kindergarten notion that all life is equal in value and should therefore not be extinguished, regardless of the person, circumstance, or possibilities. He wants to gloat that he's altruistic and superior in his need to never pull the lever by refusing to participate in good faith, unwittingly killing both parties because the trolley is just going to loop around and get what was missed.
The parallels this can be used in the USPOL discussion is fascinatingly close. The arguments they make are similar to the right wing vs liberals/left wing. Doesn't matter which is right or wrong, they won't concede and will just change the direction the argument is going until it's become reductive and nonproductive. Notice how I never got an answer to my questions a few pages back.
I shouldn't have gotten involved. So this is my last post on the topic.
|
Maybe not in fashion in all circles but I would hope most of these tech giants would adopt a First Amendment type standard, even though they aren't the government. Threats, incitement, etc is a no go, has appeals, clear rules and escalating punishments. Eighteenth century America managed to survive and some wild things were said during those days. If we can't handle it without government "pressure" then I think we have to call into question other assumptions about our democratic system. After Russiagate and the "Hunter laptop is disinformation and would never be acceptable in court" debacle some of us should re-think such "pressure." Also a reminder that Trump could be the one in charge of the whole apparatus again. Heck, the next Republican president who will inevitably be called a "fascist worse than Trump" will also have control of the executive branch.
|
I don't even think real people spreading misinformation is a huge problem unless it's actively dangerous, which is already covered by many countries' legal restrictions on free speech. The problem is troll farms/AI. These are not real people with sincerely held beliefs (even if those beliefs are completely looney). These are specifically engineered persona to push a message, at best for the lulz, but usually to further some interest which is not necessarily obvious.
Case in point: zeo mouthpiecing Russian propaganda is tolerable and even interesting at times. The thousands of robots on twitter/Facebook regurgitating Russia's fake news are not tolerable.
While I hate the idea of reducing anonymity on the internet, it would solve very many of the problems we have now. Most people would not be posting hateful vitriol if they knew their boss/wife would see that message show up in a search for their name. And robots wouldn't have the credentials and wouldn't be able to post in the first place.
Our experiment with mass anonymity has failed, but let's hope we can find a way to keep the most important upsides (people being able to adopt a new persona online, people from restrictive regimes being able to say what they want without (as much) fear for their safety, and in general people escaping social stigma/taboo around certain topics.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22746 Posts
On August 28 2024 15:04 Acrofales wrote:
I don't even think real people spreading misinformation is a huge problem unless it's actively dangerous, which is already covered by many countries' legal restrictions on free speech. The problem is troll farms/AI. These are not real people with sincerely held beliefs (even if those beliefs are completely looney). These are specifically engineered persona to push a message, at best for the lulz, but usually to further some interest which is not necessarily obvious.
Case in point: zeo mouthpiecing Russian propaganda is tolerable and even interesting at times. The thousands of robots on twitter/Facebook regurgitating Russia's fake news are not tolerable.
While I hate the idea of reducing anonymity on the internet, it would solve very many of the problems we have now. Most people would not be posting hateful vitriol if they knew their boss/wife would see that message show up in a search for their name. And robots wouldn't have the credentials and wouldn't be able to post in the first place.
Our experiment with mass anonymity has failed, but let's hope we can find a way to keep the most important upsides (people being able to adopt a new persona online, people from restrictive regimes being able to say what they want without (as much) fear for their safety, and in general people escaping social stigma/taboo around certain topics.
Don’t South Korea do something vaguely in that domain? I’m not familiar enough to comment further but perhaps someone more familiar can enlighten me and the wider thread.
Yeah I agree 100%, I guess you have the issue where you potentially expose valuable parts of the civic fabric, your whistleblowers, political dissidents or just generally persecuted people.
Perhaps there’s a simple enough workaround to that, some kinda biometric system. You just gotta prove you’re a real person, not who you are if you wanna hang on the big mainstream platforms.
There are personal data concerns of course, but people are a little strange in this area to say the least.
I’d wager quite a few in this thread use one of the fingerprint/facial recognition capabilities of their phone to unlock it. Could be as simple as doing that once in a while just to check the ‘I’m a human’ box while using a particular problem.
Another pitfall I guess through such a scheme is you’re potentially gating out people who can’t afford various tech gizmos for whatever reason.
|
On August 28 2024 13:10 Introvert wrote:
Maybe not in fashion in all circles but I would hope most of these tech giants would adopt a First Amendment type standard, even though they aren't the government. Threats, incitement, etc is a no go, has appeals, clear rules and escalating punishments. Eighteenth century America managed to survive and some wild things were said during those days. If we can't handle it without government "pressure" then I think we have to call into question other assumptions about our democratic system. After Russiagate and the "Hunter laptop is disinformation and would never be acceptable in court" debacle some of us should re-think such "pressure." Also a reminder that Trump could be the one in charge of the whole apparatus again. Heck, the next Republican president who will inevitably be called a "fascist worse than Trump" will also have control of the executive branch. A massive difference between 18th century America and the internet is the fact that the information is at the entire worlds finger tips instantly. The speed with which information propagates is massive and thanks to the wonders of 'algorithms' you get bombarded by whatever a machine things aligns with the content your consuming so there is a lot more reinforcing of whatever position you hold rather then being naturally exposed through more alternative views through natural social discourse.
If Facebook or Twitter had been around in the 18th century things would probably have turned out a lot different.
|
|
|
On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant.
You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. If you're being attacked by someone and you're rightfully afraid for your life, you have the right to defend yourself using lethal force, because it's now your life against that of a dangerous aggressor. It's a 1:1 calculation where you are the innocent person and the aggressor is guilty.
Stop trying to twist this into something that it isn't.
|
On August 28 2024 11:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 10:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? I didn't say it was less bad or more bad. The reason is because he is actually willing to answer the question. If you actually just said "no I wouldn't flip the switch to kill 1 person even if every Jew was on the other side of the tracks" I might think thats kind of messed up but mostly my sentiment would be to not really give a shit and move on - same as when Uldridge said what he said. It's the fact that you seek praise from some unnamed court for being the "least sus" while refusing to acknowledge that the necessary consequence of "never" flipping the switch is that you would allow all the Jews to die if they were on that side of the tracks. If you just had the spine to simply acknowledge the consequences of your inaction in that hypothetical then I would stfu. You're shifting the goalpost every time. I'm talking about murder, not about protection against an aggressor. The trolley problem has no aggressor. If people are being rounded up and put into gas chambers, you'd be within your right to kill the abductors. Defending someone else's life against an aggressor is not considered murder under the law. I’m not shifting the goalposts. I’m rewriting the hypothetical as a favor to you because you thought it was unfair to include Hitler. So I changed it from Hitler to 1 random guy. But for some reason you’re still ranting wildly about people being abducted and sent to gas chambers? What? It’s clear you have no interest in participating in good faith.
I'm not ranting, you are ranting lmao. You're the one who's pissed for no valid reason. Look up the definition of murder and then come back to me and tell me with a straight face that you were right. With an explanation why exactly you're right, point for point.
|
On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect.
For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic.
I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value.
That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is".
Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
