3 ms·

I think that life extension is dangerous and wrong and therefore people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. I haven't censored anyone or s

I think that life extension is dangerous and wrong and therefore people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this, and neither was I attempting to, so your point seems to be confused.

alien_at_work 9y ago
>I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? Seriously? I happen to think the exact opposite: life extension is probably one of the most noble things we could possibly be working on. Imagine if Einstein were still alive. We never learn from history, maybe because the people who lived it are all dead now. But in your mind, thinking this way probably makes me unethical (i.e. bad)! It's no problem when we're both two blobs of text on a forum, but I certainly wouldn't want you to be a boss or someone I was forced to interact with on a regular basis. And if enough people behave as radical as you are they will likely want to go beyond simply labelling people (e.g. see all the "hate crime" talk).
- cjbprime 9y ago
  It is fine that you think the opposite and I'd be happy to keep talking about it. You're probably overestimating how much it means (to me) for me to regard someone as unethical. I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.
  - alien_at_work 9y ago
    First of all, it's not you specifically. On a forum it never is. When we post here we represent a certain portion of the population. And things like censorship have proven to be very dangerous so we have to be careful. In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers. EDIT: Actually no: >people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.
BenchRouter 9y ago
> I think that life extension is dangerous and wrong and therefore people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. > I haven't shut down any argument by saying this You're being naive if you think that saying this doesn't end any hope of a reasonable discussion.
- SnacksOnAPlane 9y ago
  How so? Stating your thoughts with conviction ends any hope of a reasonable discussion? Maybe if you're afraid of confrontation. For me it's an invitation to debate.
  - alien_at_work 9y ago
    You find labelling people is in invitation to a debate? So if you find yourself in a position where you desperately need a job but upper management says "I think people of race X are <racial slur>" you would take that as an invitiation to a debate? Saying a person is unethical is labelling them. That's what I object to, not debate or confrontation.
- reverius42 9y ago
  Nobody owes anyone else a "reasonable discussion." One person's reasonable discussion is another person's interminable sea lion. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
  - alien_at_work 9y ago
    No individual owes me that, but this goes far beyond that. You have to keep in mind that any oppinion shared on line represents more than the person expressing it. And it may change the minds of others reading it. If anyone who works on controversial subject X gets a label of unethical that's not just "not owing them a reasonable discussion", you're impacting their life. Potentially ruining it. Given your stance here, you're perfectly ok with the baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, right? Because the law was effectively the sea lion in your comic.

alien_at_work 9y ago

>I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? Seriously? I happen to think the exact opposite: life extension is probably one of the most noble things we could possibly be working on. Imagine if Einstein were still alive. We never learn from history, maybe because the people who lived it are all dead now. But in your mind, thinking this way probably makes me unethical (i.e. bad)! It's no problem when we're both two blobs of text on a forum, but I certainly wouldn't want you to be a boss or someone I was forced to interact with on a regular basis. And if enough people behave as radical as you are they will likely want to go beyond simply labelling people (e.g. see all the "hate crime" talk).

cjbprime 9y ago
It is fine that you think the opposite and I'd be happy to keep talking about it. You're probably overestimating how much it means (to me) for me to regard someone as unethical. I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  First of all, it's not you specifically. On a forum it never is. When we post here we represent a certain portion of the population. And things like censorship have proven to be very dangerous so we have to be careful. In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers. EDIT: Actually no: >people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.

BenchRouter 9y ago

> I think that life extension is dangerous and wrong and therefore people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. > I haven't shut down any argument by saying this You're being naive if you think that saying this doesn't end any hope of a reasonable discussion.

SnacksOnAPlane 9y ago
How so? Stating your thoughts with conviction ends any hope of a reasonable discussion? Maybe if you're afraid of confrontation. For me it's an invitation to debate.
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  You find labelling people is in invitation to a debate? So if you find yourself in a position where you desperately need a job but upper management says "I think people of race X are <racial slur>" you would take that as an invitiation to a debate? Saying a person is unethical is labelling them. That's what I object to, not debate or confrontation.
reverius42 9y ago
Nobody owes anyone else a "reasonable discussion." One person's reasonable discussion is another person's interminable sea lion. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  No individual owes me that, but this goes far beyond that. You have to keep in mind that any oppinion shared on line represents more than the person expressing it. And it may change the minds of others reading it. If anyone who works on controversial subject X gets a label of unethical that's not just "not owing them a reasonable discussion", you're impacting their life. Potentially ruining it. Given your stance here, you're perfectly ok with the baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, right? Because the law was effectively the sea lion in your comic.