5 ms·

>Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what

>Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? No, he's asking not to be critisized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Your "someone else", whom you seem to think responds in a completely reasonable manner, makes a highly oppinionated statement and then judges people based on that oppinion. How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad". [1] In fact I find the idea beyond ludicrious. If people live longer, they're likely to put off having children until much much later (people in the west already wait about as long as they physically can). Further, if people like the Koch brothers knew they would have to stay on this planet for 10k years maybe they wouldn't be so willing to destroy the next 50-100 years for a nice 5-10 now.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad". Well the jail comparison is really far away. The boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. >No, he's asking not to be criticized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? How long until you start jailing us?!?! Anyways somehow I don't think people are calling just any idea unethical. Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Come on man. >It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Then make the argument. Where Sam cuts this conversation is totally arbitrary but it invokes the feeling that calling someone unethical ends the conversation. No, it's a claim. You don't think it's unethical then argue back. Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  >Well the jail comparison is really far away. People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail? >boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion get to ruin someones business and/or career? I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now. If the person is behaving objectively unethically, that's one thing but this is not at all settled. >Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? Yes, when you become a voting block and start outlawing thought, as is already happening. It's distasteful thought at the moment, but this entire discussion shows that things that are potentially great can be targetted. >Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. Not in the case of life extention. The objections are based on people assuming the worst possible case there but the evidence I see suggests the opposite. >The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want. >Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation. When is shut down when you start off by claiming anyone who believes what you saying is unethical. Do people not understand how to think anymore?
  - Aaron1011 9y ago
    > You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion What is an 'objective opinion'? > get to ruin someones business and/or career? Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's the latter, what would that even mean? Should people be forced to buy from a particular company? > I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now If calling someone unethical is "shutting down a conversation", what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth? > Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want. As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>How far is it from "they must be unethical" to "we should boycott their means of feeding their family" or even "we should probably put them in jail before they do something bad". Well the jail comparison is really far away. The boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. >No, he's asking not to be criticized for his ideas. And it's troubling to me that you think what you presented is a proper discourse but I guess that's where we are today. The "someone else" in your example is simple minded and potentially dangerous in large enough numbers. Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? How long until you start jailing us?!?! Anyways somehow I don't think people are calling just any idea unethical. Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Come on man. >It is not at all a given that people living longer would be disasterous for the environment [1] and therefor, no, people working on this may not be unethical. Then make the argument. Where Sam cuts this conversation is totally arbitrary but it invokes the feeling that calling someone unethical ends the conversation. No, it's a claim. You don't think it's unethical then argue back. Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.

alien_at_work 9y ago
>Well the jail comparison is really far away. People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail? >boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me. You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion get to ruin someones business and/or career? I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now. If the person is behaving objectively unethically, that's one thing but this is not at all settled. >Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh? Yes, when you become a voting block and start outlawing thought, as is already happening. It's distasteful thought at the moment, but this entire discussion shows that things that are potentially great can be targetted. >Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group. Not in the case of life extention. The objections are based on people assuming the worst possible case there but the evidence I see suggests the opposite. >The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it? Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want. >Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation. When is shut down when you start off by claiming anyone who believes what you saying is unethical. Do people not understand how to think anymore?
- Aaron1011 9y ago
  > You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion What is an 'objective opinion'? > get to ruin someones business and/or career? Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's the latter, what would that even mean? Should people be forced to buy from a particular company? > I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now If calling someone unethical is "shutting down a conversation", what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth? > Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want. As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?