3 ms·

> Hm, to quote Momento, pretty sure the world still exists when I close my eyes. I get you're making a bit of a "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is aroun

> Hm, to quote Momento, pretty sure the world still exists when I close my eyes. I get you're making a bit of a "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it" argument, but by choosing to ignore broadcast television it 1) doesn't mean it doesn't exist to others and 2) you are actually removing attention/power/money from broadcast television. So I'm not sure that's a particularly good counter example. No it is a very good example. By me not doing anything in this case the existing system (the BBC in this case) will simply become irrelevant (which is actually happening). I didn't have to say anything or do anything. The world simply changed around it (Netflix and Youtube basically) which is what I said previously. There is nothing active about it. You are engaging in newspeak. You are trying to define not doing something as doing something. > Non-action means leaving what exists in existence and is an active choice. What sort of newspeak is this? Non-action is an active choice. Next you will be telling me Freedom is Slavery or I am actively resting my posterior on the sofa. This is newspeak and what you are trying to do is drag me into participating in how you define things. I am not playing that game.

Spellman 7y ago
> By me not doing anything in this case the existing system (the BBC in this case) will simply become irrelevant (which is actually happening). I didn't have to say anything or do anything. The world simply changed around it (Netflix and Youtube basically) which is what I said previously. Conversely, if you and enough people did watch the BBC, it would stay relevant, right?
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  No. Because there are younger people that grew up with better alternatives. The world has moved on. You keep on assuming the rest of the world is static. Even if the numbers in my generation stayed that watched broadcast TV until we died. Once we are dead there isn't likely to be the same number of people replacing us is there? Nothing our end needed to change but the world did anyway.
  - Spellman 7y ago
    I'm actually assuming the world is incredibly non-static, and your choices make a difference. "The world has moved on" to me says enough people decided collectively X was better than Y. Great! It's amazingly fascinating that somehow each of these individuals somehow chose the alternative. They chose alternatives due to preferences! And those choices included not watching broadcast television (or at least ignoring it). And you're one of them. Congrats, you're part of "the world." Similarly, we could create a static world with exact numbers of population and some % always watch broadcast TV for X hours. But we seem to not like that and instead choose differently. Obviously this doesn't stack up all the way. The world has a funny way of inserting chaos beyond our control. But by and large a lot of society is controlled by a lot of individuals making either consciously or unconsciously making choices to act or not act. And thus my point, not acting is itself a choice that has consequences.
    - uk_programmer 7y ago
      > But by and large a lot of society is controlled by a lot of individuals making either consciously or unconsciously making choices to act or not act. You can't unconsciously make a choice. This is patently ridiculous. > "The world has moved on" to me says enough people decided collectively X was better than Y. Great! It's amazingly fascinating that somehow each of these individuals somehow chose the alternative. They chose alternatives due to preferences! And those choices included not watching broadcast television (or at least ignoring it). And you're one of them. Congrats, you're part of "the world." I was clearly speaking about "the world" as things outside of my control. You again have failed to address the specific scenario I made in an ingenious manner. This is very much like the motte and bailey tactic of argumentation. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey > And thus my point, not acting is itself a choice that has consequences. Your point is obvious. It is ridiculous that it somehow "proof" that you are right. Lets go back to the core argument. Just because you don't take action at a particular time doesn't mean you are supporting an existing system. People like yourself need to understand the difference between accepting the reality of the situation and supporting the status quo.

Spellman 7y ago

> By me not doing anything in this case the existing system (the BBC in this case) will simply become irrelevant (which is actually happening). I didn't have to say anything or do anything. The world simply changed around it (Netflix and Youtube basically) which is what I said previously. Conversely, if you and enough people did watch the BBC, it would stay relevant, right?

uk_programmer 7y ago
No. Because there are younger people that grew up with better alternatives. The world has moved on. You keep on assuming the rest of the world is static. Even if the numbers in my generation stayed that watched broadcast TV until we died. Once we are dead there isn't likely to be the same number of people replacing us is there? Nothing our end needed to change but the world did anyway.
- Spellman 7y ago
  I'm actually assuming the world is incredibly non-static, and your choices make a difference. "The world has moved on" to me says enough people decided collectively X was better than Y. Great! It's amazingly fascinating that somehow each of these individuals somehow chose the alternative. They chose alternatives due to preferences! And those choices included not watching broadcast television (or at least ignoring it). And you're one of them. Congrats, you're part of "the world." Similarly, we could create a static world with exact numbers of population and some % always watch broadcast TV for X hours. But we seem to not like that and instead choose differently. Obviously this doesn't stack up all the way. The world has a funny way of inserting chaos beyond our control. But by and large a lot of society is controlled by a lot of individuals making either consciously or unconsciously making choices to act or not act. And thus my point, not acting is itself a choice that has consequences.
  - uk_programmer 7y ago
    > But by and large a lot of society is controlled by a lot of individuals making either consciously or unconsciously making choices to act or not act. You can't unconsciously make a choice. This is patently ridiculous. > "The world has moved on" to me says enough people decided collectively X was better than Y. Great! It's amazingly fascinating that somehow each of these individuals somehow chose the alternative. They chose alternatives due to preferences! And those choices included not watching broadcast television (or at least ignoring it). And you're one of them. Congrats, you're part of "the world." I was clearly speaking about "the world" as things outside of my control. You again have failed to address the specific scenario I made in an ingenious manner. This is very much like the motte and bailey tactic of argumentation. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey > And thus my point, not acting is itself a choice that has consequences. Your point is obvious. It is ridiculous that it somehow "proof" that you are right. Lets go back to the core argument. Just because you don't take action at a particular time doesn't mean you are supporting an existing system. People like yourself need to understand the difference between accepting the reality of the situation and supporting the status quo.