4 ms·

I figure the author is here so 1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. 2. Even if legal, consent does not equal lack of manipulation 3. It's attacking a strawman, a

I figure the author is here so 1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. 2. Even if legal, consent does not equal lack of manipulation 3. It's attacking a strawman, and is inherently provocative. Provocative doesn't have to mean wrong, but in this case it fails on it's premise. It's concerning to me the author doesn't have a basic understanding of why underage laws exist. It doesn't mean that anyone underage can't make mature decisions. It's there because it's a time ripe for abuse in a manner that's difficult to prove. Without getting very realistic, dark, and entirely off topic I can't go into details, but there are very good reasons why that exists. It doesn't mean they can't not be trusted to drive, or handle money, or whatever. There isn't a relation.

orf 6y ago
> It's concerning to me the author doesn't have a basic understanding of why underage laws exist. I think he does, he is not stupid. I guess he just wanted attention and tweets like that play well into his base, who might not have the same understanding.
entropyneur 6y ago
> It doesn't mean that anyone underage can't make mature decisions. It's there because it's a time ripe for abuse in a manner that's difficult to prove. I am unable to see the contradiction. If Greta was indeed guiding global policy (which she's not even remotely close to doing) there would exist very strong incentive to manipulate her and the aggregate potential harm would greatly exceed that of a single instance of child abuse. It's indeed a total strawman on the face of it, but I think the actual point he's making is that forbidden thoughts exists and the replies on Twitter are a proof of that point imo.
bondarchuk 6y ago
You are replying to inflammatory twitter bait in a reply to not-the-tweeter on hacker news. Seriously, also @orf, why take this here? Clearly the impulse to reflexively argue about this is too big to handle for some. Go do this on twitter where you copied it from.
- orf 6y ago
  Describing the personal pilosophy of an author of a philosophy book is clearly relevant. It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact: "The author of this book holds these views". Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. If you find it uncomfortable to see those views discussed then I would humbly suggest that it may be your problem to deal with and not mine.
  - prvc 6y ago
    >Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. Those feelings are pretty obvious. I say, the new "Never trust anyone over 30" is "Never listen to takes from someone who hasn't been cancelled".
  - nyolfen 6y ago
    the author plays a game on twitter that many people do, which is ‘find an apparent contradiction in the prevailing morality and make a reprehensible/funny argument with it’; robin hanson for example is the master of this game. this may not be obvious without context but it is literally just negative attention bait to gain an audience
- cambalache 6y ago
  Yes more censorship is what we need.
  - hopfscotch2 6y ago
    If it was only to shut up people like you, it would be enough.
- wwright 6y ago
  I think that it’s worthwhile to note that the author of the linked article has equated a child protesting climate change with systematic child rape. That’s very helpful context for reading his other work.
fsckboy 6y ago
>1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. whoosh. He agrees with you that maturity doesn't equal consent; in fact, he relies on that it doesn't, he is saying something about immaturity. He is saying "Greta Thunberg is immature, why would you listen to her talk about long term issues of international economics (externalities)? If you would listen to her seriously, you would also hold to [other obviously absurd proposition]s." Your reply to him reads to me like you're shaking him by the lapels to say "your obviously absurd proposition is obviously absurd!!!" Why is it so hard for "woke", "critical thinking" "virtue signallers" to follow simple analogies and reductio ad absurdem? One key to following somebody's argument is to not change their wording, just engage with the words they used and make sure you stick with a meaning that is consistent with what was said. edit: just wanted to add for clarity, you might think for whatever reason that he's wrong and we should listen to Greta Thunberg's message. That's fine, but you know what that is called? it's called "staying on topic". It's all he was talking about. and you may also think he went about making his point in a foolish way. That's also ok, but you say that more authoritatively if you show you get the point he was making, see above.

orf 6y ago

> It's concerning to me the author doesn't have a basic understanding of why underage laws exist. I think he does, he is not stupid. I guess he just wanted attention and tweets like that play well into his base, who might not have the same understanding.

entropyneur 6y ago

> It doesn't mean that anyone underage can't make mature decisions. It's there because it's a time ripe for abuse in a manner that's difficult to prove. I am unable to see the contradiction. If Greta was indeed guiding global policy (which she's not even remotely close to doing) there would exist very strong incentive to manipulate her and the aggregate potential harm would greatly exceed that of a single instance of child abuse. It's indeed a total strawman on the face of it, but I think the actual point he's making is that forbidden thoughts exists and the replies on Twitter are a proof of that point imo.

bondarchuk 6y ago

You are replying to inflammatory twitter bait in a reply to not-the-tweeter on hacker news. Seriously, also @orf, why take this here? Clearly the impulse to reflexively argue about this is too big to handle for some. Go do this on twitter where you copied it from.

orf 6y ago
Describing the personal pilosophy of an author of a philosophy book is clearly relevant. It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact: "The author of this book holds these views". Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. If you find it uncomfortable to see those views discussed then I would humbly suggest that it may be your problem to deal with and not mine.
- prvc 6y ago
  >Like most people I feel a certain way about his views but in the original comment I don't share those. Those feelings are pretty obvious. I say, the new "Never trust anyone over 30" is "Never listen to takes from someone who hasn't been cancelled".
- nyolfen 6y ago
  the author plays a game on twitter that many people do, which is ‘find an apparent contradiction in the prevailing morality and make a reprehensible/funny argument with it’; robin hanson for example is the master of this game. this may not be obvious without context but it is literally just negative attention bait to gain an audience
cambalache 6y ago
Yes more censorship is what we need.
- hopfscotch2 6y ago
  If it was only to shut up people like you, it would be enough.
wwright 6y ago
I think that it’s worthwhile to note that the author of the linked article has equated a child protesting climate change with systematic child rape. That’s very helpful context for reading his other work.

fsckboy 6y ago

>1. Maturity doesn't equal consent. whoosh. He agrees with you that maturity doesn't equal consent; in fact, he relies on that it doesn't, he is saying something about immaturity. He is saying "Greta Thunberg is immature, why would you listen to her talk about long term issues of international economics (externalities)? If you would listen to her seriously, you would also hold to [other obviously absurd proposition]s." Your reply to him reads to me like you're shaking him by the lapels to say "your obviously absurd proposition is obviously absurd!!!" Why is it so hard for "woke", "critical thinking" "virtue signallers" to follow simple analogies and reductio ad absurdem? One key to following somebody's argument is to not change their wording, just engage with the words they used and make sure you stick with a meaning that is consistent with what was said. edit: just wanted to add for clarity, you might think for whatever reason that he's wrong and we should listen to Greta Thunberg's message. That's fine, but you know what that is called? it's called "staying on topic". It's all he was talking about. and you may also think he went about making his point in a foolish way. That's also ok, but you say that more authoritatively if you show you get the point he was making, see above.