5 ms·

We're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.

• s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Why not? It is a good and relevant point.
  • jonny_eh 5y ago
    Because it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?
    • colinmhayes 5y ago
      I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.
      • jonny_eh 5y ago
        > I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto That's not my point though, my point is that quoting his manifesto validates his violence. If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.
        • s1artibartfast 5y ago
          >If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote. Why is that so sure? Do you have an equivalent quote to substitute?
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Absolutely his murders invalidate his manifesto. The ideas that he expressed in the manifesto are the same ideas that moved him to murder people. His opposition to technology is why he was bombing computer stores and the University of Utah Engineering Building. This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
        • s1artibartfast 5y ago
          That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. >His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
          • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
            Most of us consider murder to be self-evidently wrong. The intersection of "right, and causing murder" is very close to empty for most definitions of "right". Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.
            • s1artibartfast 5y ago
              Murder is typically defined as unjustifiable or wrong, so you would expect the set to be empty. Replace "murder" with 'killing" and most people will have the opposite reaction.
              • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
                >>>> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. - colinmhayes (the original post I responded to). And, for your point to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to claim that what the Unabomber did was "killing" rather than "murder". If you claim that, I'd like to see your definitions and where you think the line between killing and murder is. And if that isn't your claim, it looks like you're just arguing in order to argue.
                • s1artibartfast 5y ago
                  I have no interest in defending the actions of the Unabomber. I did feel that you were using the tautology of murder to ignore my actual point. >You: His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. >Me: That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. If the unabomber said as part of the manifesto that the sky is blue, would you now reject that the sky is blue? There is nothing about murder that invalidates the logic, truth, or accuracy of an argument, and especially not the individual components of an argument. It is fine and fair if you don't personally want to learn or engage with an argument that has lead to violence. But that does not mean that it is internally inconsistent, or devoid of accurate observations about the world (e.g. new technologies can impose externalities on the unwilling).
      • asveikau 5y ago
        I think he ultimately suffered mental illness, and it is reflected in both the fact that he murdered and the ideas in his manifesto. It's hard to separate them. There may be similar ideas expressed by those who don't share his pathology, but his version of it is extreme and fringe.
  • asveikau 5y ago
    As someone who likes to walk in an urban environment, I'd say it's not good and relevant. It's rather detached from the actual experience of the urban walker. There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.
    • s1artibartfast 5y ago
      The point is simply that that one person's choice can have impact on others. This is pretty basic and true if you like like urban walking or not.
      • asveikau 5y ago
        No, i think this was just part of the author's delusional narrative that technological adoption is a form of violence. If it is not actually that, and if there are safety measures that can be taken, he doesn't care. I'm not a pro car person actually. And that's the vibe I'm getting from Kaczynski in this instance. Words of an out of touch person.
• twofornone 5y ago
  The fact that someone did something terrible does not imply that everything they ever said or did was wrong. That's dangerous thinking. The Unabomber's short manifesto makes a number of salient points about the negative interplay between technology and the human condition, and offers a neat potential explanation for why so many people are unhappy despite being surrounded by modern conveniences.
• dogman144 5y ago
  Fwiw, at the time and after, there were quite a few conferences and analysis of his manifesto.
• nsv 5y ago
  This is an example of "ad hominem", a logical fallacy where you attack a person's character or attributes rather than the point being made.