5 ms·

The prime directive is not for peer civilization. Iran is not on a stone age (yet).

by d0mine 4y ago

rcarr 4y ago
Allow me to introduce you to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The objection was to your metaphor.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    A metaphor is never going to cleanly map from one situation across to another. If it did, we would have no need for the metaphor as we would just have two identical scenarios. The metaphor’s purpose is to elucidate insight in one matter by presenting another with some similarities. If you’re going to object to a metaphor, I think you should do it on the grounds that it offers little to no insight into the situation. In my opinion, if you’re going to object to the above quote based on the fact that Iran is, in terms of infrastructure if not politically, well developed then you may as well also disregard it because Iranians are not an alien species and software developers are not captains of space ships. To use another metaphor: you’re losing the forest for the trees. Please don’t object to this on the grounds that there is no foliage on the bridge of the USS Enterprise.
    - d0mine 4y ago
      Your metaphor would work if we discussed whether or not to contact some isolated tribe in Amazon. Then we could have discussed pro/cons of destroying someone way of life by introducing our civilization vs. turning a blind eye to the poor (by our standards) living conditions of the tribe. Iran (even if you don't like its political system) is not it.
      - rcarr 4y ago
        The metaphor obviously doesn’t resonate with you. It does resonate for myself and for 13 other people. I wish you well and hope you find something more to your liking.
        d0mine 4y ago
        It is very sad that facts do not matter just populism
        rcarr 4y ago
        No, it is sad that you cannot accept that people respond differently to different things. That two different viewpoints can exist and both be wrong and both be correct to varying degrees simultaneously. That one man's trash is another man's treasure. There is no "fact" in metaphor and story, only interpretation. It is not objective science. Rather ironically given the thread, you're acting as if you're the ayatollah of metaphor and that we should all just get in line and bow to your viewpoint. What (I presume) you see in the quote: - We have a rule not to interfere in *primitive* cultures. - It is sometimes acceptable to break this rule when I feel it is morally right to do so. When you read the quote, your emphasis is on the primitive. To you, the prime directive as a metaphor can only stretch to cover that. However, other people can take this advice and apply it in a more abstract way to many different areas of life. For example: - We have a rule not to interfere in other cultures. - We have rule not to interfere in other parts of the business. - I have a rule not to interfere in other people’s affairs. For example, the latter could form part of Kant’s Axe Murderer dilemma. You may think it is unacceptable to lie, but when faced with an axe murderer at the door looking for someone they intend to murder, you may choose to lie to save the intended victim. You may or may not class this as interference. You may go further and ring the police at which point I think you are interfering by most people's definition. Even though we are now talking about axe murderers and are very far away from primitive alien cultures, there is still a link between the two scenarios regarding rules around interference and when it is morally right to do so. You could almost see this as a percentage scale, where 100% would be if a future space ship captain was debating whether to interfere in a primitive culture and 0% being do I want to get a bacon roll for breakfast tomorrow (e.g zero relevance). In this case, yes, your point about the amazonian tribe IS more relevant as it ticks more similarity boxes. Maybe it would score something like a 90% on the similarity scale. However, “we have a rule not to interfere in other cultures” is, in my mind, not too many percentage points off, maybe say 85%. To you it may be much less, say 30%. That’s fine, we are allowed to have different viewpoints. The one thing I would say is that I personally feel that if you take a restrictive view of stories (which is what I would consider only allowing yourself to consider the prime directive relevant to primitive cultures) you are cutting off a lot of the richness of story telling. Writers want us to take their stories, be they set in the past, present and future, and relate it to our lives and current events. If you don’t do that, then what even is the point in taking the time to read them? Do you even feel a connection to the story? Do you feel it has enriched your life in any way? Are you really watching Star Trek in case you one day have to make an ethical decision on whether to interfere with an Amazonian tribe or do you feel that there are lessons within it that can be applied to more mundane and ordinary existences?

The prime directive is not for peer civilization. Iran is not on a stone age (yet).

by d0mine 4y ago

The prime directive is not for peer civilization. Iran is not on a stone age (yet).

rcarr 4y ago

Allow me to introduce you to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

pessimizer 4y ago
The objection was to your metaphor.
- rcarr 4y ago
  A metaphor is never going to cleanly map from one situation across to another. If it did, we would have no need for the metaphor as we would just have two identical scenarios. The metaphor’s purpose is to elucidate insight in one matter by presenting another with some similarities. If you’re going to object to a metaphor, I think you should do it on the grounds that it offers little to no insight into the situation. In my opinion, if you’re going to object to the above quote based on the fact that Iran is, in terms of infrastructure if not politically, well developed then you may as well also disregard it because Iranians are not an alien species and software developers are not captains of space ships. To use another metaphor: you’re losing the forest for the trees. Please don’t object to this on the grounds that there is no foliage on the bridge of the USS Enterprise.
  - d0mine 4y ago
    Your metaphor would work if we discussed whether or not to contact some isolated tribe in Amazon. Then we could have discussed pro/cons of destroying someone way of life by introducing our civilization vs. turning a blind eye to the poor (by our standards) living conditions of the tribe. Iran (even if you don't like its political system) is not it.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      The metaphor obviously doesn’t resonate with you. It does resonate for myself and for 13 other people. I wish you well and hope you find something more to your liking.
      - d0mine 4y ago
        It is very sad that facts do not matter just populism
        rcarr 4y ago
        No, it is sad that you cannot accept that people respond differently to different things. That two different viewpoints can exist and both be wrong and both be correct to varying degrees simultaneously. That one man's trash is another man's treasure. There is no "fact" in metaphor and story, only interpretation. It is not objective science. Rather ironically given the thread, you're acting as if you're the ayatollah of metaphor and that we should all just get in line and bow to your viewpoint. What (I presume) you see in the quote: - We have a rule not to interfere in *primitive* cultures. - It is sometimes acceptable to break this rule when I feel it is morally right to do so. When you read the quote, your emphasis is on the primitive. To you, the prime directive as a metaphor can only stretch to cover that. However, other people can take this advice and apply it in a more abstract way to many different areas of life. For example: - We have a rule not to interfere in other cultures. - We have rule not to interfere in other parts of the business. - I have a rule not to interfere in other people’s affairs. For example, the latter could form part of Kant’s Axe Murderer dilemma. You may think it is unacceptable to lie, but when faced with an axe murderer at the door looking for someone they intend to murder, you may choose to lie to save the intended victim. You may or may not class this as interference. You may go further and ring the police at which point I think you are interfering by most people's definition. Even though we are now talking about axe murderers and are very far away from primitive alien cultures, there is still a link between the two scenarios regarding rules around interference and when it is morally right to do so. You could almost see this as a percentage scale, where 100% would be if a future space ship captain was debating whether to interfere in a primitive culture and 0% being do I want to get a bacon roll for breakfast tomorrow (e.g zero relevance). In this case, yes, your point about the amazonian tribe IS more relevant as it ticks more similarity boxes. Maybe it would score something like a 90% on the similarity scale. However, “we have a rule not to interfere in other cultures” is, in my mind, not too many percentage points off, maybe say 85%. To you it may be much less, say 30%. That’s fine, we are allowed to have different viewpoints. The one thing I would say is that I personally feel that if you take a restrictive view of stories (which is what I would consider only allowing yourself to consider the prime directive relevant to primitive cultures) you are cutting off a lot of the richness of story telling. Writers want us to take their stories, be they set in the past, present and future, and relate it to our lives and current events. If you don’t do that, then what even is the point in taking the time to read them? Do you even feel a connection to the story? Do you feel it has enriched your life in any way? Are you really watching Star Trek in case you one day have to make an ethical decision on whether to interfere with an Amazonian tribe or do you feel that there are lessons within it that can be applied to more mundane and ordinary existences?