4 ms·

No, you can't get away with that, he used very specific phrasing, this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a par

No, you can't get away with that, he used very specific phrasing, this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Is very different from this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death is morally desirable: no. The unessential clause in this statement is, "because it is basically a parasite." Stating it this way allows him to affirm that he thinks starving babies are a parasite on society while also signaling that he is virtuous enough to think its death is an overall negative. What is not stated, rather implied is the but, the but that belongs between the sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. And the sentence: > Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes Basically stating: Should starving babies die? No, but, we should consider the entire ethical framework of economics from first principles that maybe requires that these starving babies die so that people are not robbed of their liberty by the taxation that subsidizes the starving babies. The absurdity is that you defend it by exclaiming, "Those exact words are never stated!" No they are implied, I said they are implied since the beginning. Do you need a dictionary definition of what implication is in order to understand my argument? To understand his argument? To understand exactly how diseased of a philosophy AnCap is? Because that is part of the problem with AnCap, is that it implies much but states little. The implication is that modern principled society is flawed and we should return to a feudal state where the wealthy get to piss on all the plebeians because who fucking cares about peons.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I didn't read it that way at all. > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. I read that as saying that as using their wording, not as agreeing with their viewpoint. > Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes I read that as saying that the the attempt was interesting, in an intellectual way, not saying that we should consider the resulting ethical framework at all. I read it as rejecting the resulting ethical framework in the previous quote. Can I prove that my reading is right and yours is wrong? No. But I do note that HN guidelines require interpreting others' words charitably.
- stillbourne 8y ago
  There is no way to interpret AnCap charitably. It's like asking me to interpret antivax nonsense or climate denial charitably. And it should be met with the same incredulity and ridicule. While we're at it let's go ahead and say the holocaust wasn't so bad, because the nonsense that is AnCap will lead to the same ends. And if you want to flag my comments as being against "HN guidelines" go ahead. If they actually evaluate my comments and decide that I am being "uncharitable" then this forum has devolved into what I have always feared it would become. I've been on HN for over 8 years now. I remember when it was just tech news. But the advent of blockchain and bitcoin and its vague relation to technology has brought in a lot of economic quackery and political fringe philosophies along with it. If this is how I get booted so be it. But I will not be silent when people are ok with the endorsement of bullshit as long as the bullshit is stated "charitably" furthermore I can prove that my view of his opinion is correct because of this statement here: >I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking. Let me google something for you that proves my point. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+parasite http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+parasite
  - davvolun 8y ago
    If I say Hitler was clearly a persuasive speaker, does that imply I believe Nazism? Per my understanding, Austrian economics would presumably argue that (1) babies are parasites (2) parasites should be eliminated (3) ergo, babies should be eliminated AnCap CLEARLY comes to the conclusion that babies should not be eliminated, but makes no argument whatsoever on (1) or (2). In other words, if given the presumed premise of Austrian economics, the conclusion is thus flawed. You attributing this intellectual argument to the user as though they were a believer in that school of thought makes no sense to me. This whole conversation is frustrating because I can't find anything notable you've written here which I disagree with other than that you're ascribing AnCap to this point of view. > I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking. "Forward thinking" in terms of making all of their information readily available; not forward thinking in terms of the entire school of thought. And now you're claiming that AnimalMuppet is threatening to report you or get you kicked off HN. No one said that! AnimalMuppet was referencing the guidelines to say, instead of assuming that AnCap would like babies dead, read it assuming that AnCap doesn't want babies dead, and draw your conclusions from there.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I didn't read it that way at all. > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. I read that as saying that as using their wording, not as agreeing with their viewpoint. > Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes I read that as saying that the the attempt was interesting, in an intellectual way, not saying that we should consider the resulting ethical framework at all. I read it as rejecting the resulting ethical framework in the previous quote. Can I prove that my reading is right and yours is wrong? No. But I do note that HN guidelines require interpreting others' words charitably.

stillbourne 8y ago
There is no way to interpret AnCap charitably. It's like asking me to interpret antivax nonsense or climate denial charitably. And it should be met with the same incredulity and ridicule. While we're at it let's go ahead and say the holocaust wasn't so bad, because the nonsense that is AnCap will lead to the same ends. And if you want to flag my comments as being against "HN guidelines" go ahead. If they actually evaluate my comments and decide that I am being "uncharitable" then this forum has devolved into what I have always feared it would become. I've been on HN for over 8 years now. I remember when it was just tech news. But the advent of blockchain and bitcoin and its vague relation to technology has brought in a lot of economic quackery and political fringe philosophies along with it. If this is how I get booted so be it. But I will not be silent when people are ok with the endorsement of bullshit as long as the bullshit is stated "charitably" furthermore I can prove that my view of his opinion is correct because of this statement here: >I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking. Let me google something for you that proves my point. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+parasite http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+parasite
- davvolun 8y ago
  If I say Hitler was clearly a persuasive speaker, does that imply I believe Nazism? Per my understanding, Austrian economics would presumably argue that (1) babies are parasites (2) parasites should be eliminated (3) ergo, babies should be eliminated AnCap CLEARLY comes to the conclusion that babies should not be eliminated, but makes no argument whatsoever on (1) or (2). In other words, if given the presumed premise of Austrian economics, the conclusion is thus flawed. You attributing this intellectual argument to the user as though they were a believer in that school of thought makes no sense to me. This whole conversation is frustrating because I can't find anything notable you've written here which I disagree with other than that you're ascribing AnCap to this point of view. > I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking. "Forward thinking" in terms of making all of their information readily available; not forward thinking in terms of the entire school of thought. And now you're claiming that AnimalMuppet is threatening to report you or get you kicked off HN. No one said that! AnimalMuppet was referencing the guidelines to say, instead of assuming that AnCap would like babies dead, read it assuming that AnCap doesn't want babies dead, and draw your conclusions from there.