4 ms·

For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kil

For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kill you. For 2, I disagree - you may want chemicals in your well if they’re designed to counteract the poison that was already in there. See 1. In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. > no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists How fallible are we talking here? “Probably” is carrying an awful lot of weight in that argument. > You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed. That’s just like your opinion, man.

1attice 4y ago
N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3. > That’s just like your opinion, man. Yes, a state of affairs I indicated by using the qualifier 'think.' :) Writing is a competition for the opinions of your readership -- what did you take yourself to be doing? > In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? No analogy can be extended indefinitely, or you wouldn't be working with an analogy, you'd be observing an identity. It doesn't work, rhetorically, to take someone's analogy and point out that it is not `===` with the analogand. That's basically just an assertion that analogy is impossible. Given the analogical elements introduced by the original toot, it works. If I liken thee to a summer's day, it is no fault of mine that you have no solstice. > For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. The SAIC? (with apologies to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago)
- textninja 4y ago
  > No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. We may disagree even more than you think ;)
  - 1attice 4y ago
    I was pointing out the self-own: that your stated position motivates an outcome orthogonal to your values. Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)
    - textninja 4y ago
      > Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :) I mean, I did use 3 out of 8 points to rag on ethicists.
      - 1attice 4y ago
        Wait till you find out Nozick was an ethicist, that libertarianism is a position within political philosophy (which in turn is a generalization of ethics.)
        textninja 4y ago
        I’m a programmer, not a philosopher, so I never actually heard of him, but from his Wikipedia entry I learned that “he rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by Locke and most contemporary capitalist-oriented libertarian academics,” and let’s just say it didn’t say anything about him getting fired from his job.
- textninja 4y ago
  > N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3 Your most important point is the distinction between an assumption and a presupposition? I honestly didn’t see the need to challenge that.

1attice 4y ago

N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3. > That’s just like your opinion, man. Yes, a state of affairs I indicated by using the qualifier 'think.' :) Writing is a competition for the opinions of your readership -- what did you take yourself to be doing? > In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? No analogy can be extended indefinitely, or you wouldn't be working with an analogy, you'd be observing an identity. It doesn't work, rhetorically, to take someone's analogy and point out that it is not `===` with the analogand. That's basically just an assertion that analogy is impossible. Given the analogical elements introduced by the original toot, it works. If I liken thee to a summer's day, it is no fault of mine that you have no solstice. > For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. The SAIC? (with apologies to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago)

textninja 4y ago
> No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. We may disagree even more than you think ;)
- 1attice 4y ago
  I was pointing out the self-own: that your stated position motivates an outcome orthogonal to your values. Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)
  - textninja 4y ago
    > Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :) I mean, I did use 3 out of 8 points to rag on ethicists.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      Wait till you find out Nozick was an ethicist, that libertarianism is a position within political philosophy (which in turn is a generalization of ethics.)
      - textninja 4y ago
        I’m a programmer, not a philosopher, so I never actually heard of him, but from his Wikipedia entry I learned that “he rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by Locke and most contemporary capitalist-oriented libertarian academics,” and let’s just say it didn’t say anything about him getting fired from his job.
textninja 4y ago
> N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3 Your most important point is the distinction between an assumption and a presupposition? I honestly didn’t see the need to challenge that.