3 ms·

If your argument is that directly murdering someone is equivalent to supporting politicians who support policies which you don't like, you've already lost. Why

by defen 4y ago

If your argument is that directly murdering someone is equivalent to supporting politicians who support policies which you don't like, you've already lost. Why not just murder the people who voted for the politicians that Thiel supported while you're at it?

Teever 4y ago
You're right. Murder is wrong. Now if I was to design, test, and debug these devices, then release the blueprints along with a manifesto that lists what I feel are problems in society and who I feel are causing the problems, how would that be different from what Thiel is doing?
- Vecr 4y ago
  That's probably legal if you are careful enough. You might get railroaded though, political prosecutions are a thing in the US.
  - Teever 4y ago
    You're right, I should more closely mimic Thiel by hiring some talking heads for social media platforms. One to disseminate the blueprints, and the other for the manifesto.
    - defen 4y ago
      Is your argument that Thiel is arguing for murder, in a roundabout way? Can you give an example of that?
      - Teever 4y ago
        It's not my argument, it's the argument of the person I'm responding to. > Some of you reading this are going to huff and just disregard it, but for Thiel, preventing potential massive tragedy in the future is likely worth a tradeoff of some people being "harmed" now. What I'm asking is how many degrees of separation is needed to make what OP is saying Thiel is doing acceptable.
        defen 4y ago
        As far as I can tell, "harmed" is in quotes because the so-called harm would not even have been recognized as such in previous generations (unless you can provide counterexamples)
        Teever 4y ago
        That doesn't make sense because the hypothetical alternative that Thiel is trying to prevent an atrocity by conducting less of atrocity. It's a the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. If there wasn't something substantial on the table we wouldn't be having this discussion.

by defen 4y ago

Teever 4y ago

You're right. Murder is wrong. Now if I was to design, test, and debug these devices, then release the blueprints along with a manifesto that lists what I feel are problems in society and who I feel are causing the problems, how would that be different from what Thiel is doing?

Vecr 4y ago
That's probably legal if you are careful enough. You might get railroaded though, political prosecutions are a thing in the US.
- Teever 4y ago
  You're right, I should more closely mimic Thiel by hiring some talking heads for social media platforms. One to disseminate the blueprints, and the other for the manifesto.
  - defen 4y ago
    Is your argument that Thiel is arguing for murder, in a roundabout way? Can you give an example of that?
    - Teever 4y ago
      It's not my argument, it's the argument of the person I'm responding to. > Some of you reading this are going to huff and just disregard it, but for Thiel, preventing potential massive tragedy in the future is likely worth a tradeoff of some people being "harmed" now. What I'm asking is how many degrees of separation is needed to make what OP is saying Thiel is doing acceptable.
      - defen 4y ago
        As far as I can tell, "harmed" is in quotes because the so-called harm would not even have been recognized as such in previous generations (unless you can provide counterexamples)
        Teever 4y ago
        That doesn't make sense because the hypothetical alternative that Thiel is trying to prevent an atrocity by conducting less of atrocity. It's a the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. If there wasn't something substantial on the table we wouldn't be having this discussion.