2 ms·
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, pre
by 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 agoAs 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 agoThat 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.