4 ms·
> pretending its all a XOR between (2) and (3) No one is pretending this. At least, I'm not, and the author of the article isn't. You're completely missing th
by philh 11y ago
> pretending its all a XOR between (2) and (3)
No one is pretending this. At least, I'm not, and the author of the article isn't.
You're completely missing the fact that I'm not talking about ethics here. You're arguing pro-CIE, and your arguments are fine, but trying to argue ethics is beside the point. I'm talking about ethical positions, a meta-level up; and I'm saying that you subscribe to CIE while calling CIE a straw man.
- coldtea 11y ago>You're completely missing the fact that I'm not talking about ethics here. I can't see how this can be, since the core of what we are discussing is a supposed "Copenhagen interpretation of ETHICS". >I'm talking about ethical positions, a meta-level up; and I'm saying that you subscribe to CIE while calling CIE a straw man. Again, no logical contradiction there. As I explained I subscribe to CIE+ (a superset). This means that I can both subscribe to CIE (as it's contained in the superset CIE+) AND find it when discussed alone (without the extra additions) lacking/a strawman. For a crude example of that, one can logically subscribe to S+ ("men are rapists sometimes") and still view S ("men are rapists") as a strawman.
- philh 11y agoTalking about ethics: this is good and this is bad Talking about ethical positions: some people say this is good and this is bad; other people say... I still think that what you call a strawman is just something you actually believe, and that you're interpreting it as a much stronger claim than it actually is. But I don't care enough to argue further.