3 ms·

I'm not going to answer arguments you make up and assign me as though they were my own. Do people usually tolerate that in your experience?

klipt 1y ago
Look in the mirror pal. You've been nothing but rude and assuming this whole thread
- throwanem 1y ago
  Well, I haven't been willing to take you at your word when you showed up to tell me how wrong I am based on nothing but your say-so. Sure, I'll give you that. Were you not expecting to have to convince anyone? If that really is so, then again I have to ask, do you imagine this sort of thing normal? Are you in the habit of letting harangue stand in for conversation in ordinary life also, or is this a special occasion?
  - klipt 1y ago
    Okay, tell me what your moral framework is, and I'll tell you how it's just a variant of utilitarianism.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.
      - JohnKemeny 1y ago
        What began as a complaint about HN’s interest in Scott Alexander devolved into a prolonged, hostile, and circular argument about whether certain reproductive choices are a form of eugenics, whether that’s compatible with utilitarianism, and whether utilitarianism itself is morally bankrupt. Neither side persuades the other, and the thread becomes more about rhetorical sparring than the original topic.
        throwanem 1y ago
        > There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly. Now we have an illustration of precisely what that means, more or less entirely in spite of those irritated into furnishing it. Oh, I understand why rhetoric gets a bad name. No fool ever likes being made to look foolish. That's worth doing, in public, as often as possible, with the kind of person it takes to look utilitarianism full in the face, 'repugnant conclusion' and all, and still embrace it.
      - klipt 1y ago
        > For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me. Easy, your utility function is an indicator on WWPTD (What Would a Priest of Tezcatlipoca Do)? +1000 when your actions are in accordance with a priest of Tezcatlipoca, and -1000 when they are not. Like string theory, you can make utilitarianism fit anything. So on its own, it is neither good nor evil. It entirely depends on which utility function.
        throwanem 1y ago
        Which is where we came in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826880 I appreciate your honesty.

klipt 1y ago

Look in the mirror pal. You've been nothing but rude and assuming this whole thread

throwanem 1y ago
Well, I haven't been willing to take you at your word when you showed up to tell me how wrong I am based on nothing but your say-so. Sure, I'll give you that. Were you not expecting to have to convince anyone? If that really is so, then again I have to ask, do you imagine this sort of thing normal? Are you in the habit of letting harangue stand in for conversation in ordinary life also, or is this a special occasion?
- klipt 1y ago
  Okay, tell me what your moral framework is, and I'll tell you how it's just a variant of utilitarianism.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.
    - JohnKemeny 1y ago
      What began as a complaint about HN’s interest in Scott Alexander devolved into a prolonged, hostile, and circular argument about whether certain reproductive choices are a form of eugenics, whether that’s compatible with utilitarianism, and whether utilitarianism itself is morally bankrupt. Neither side persuades the other, and the thread becomes more about rhetorical sparring than the original topic.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        > There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly. Now we have an illustration of precisely what that means, more or less entirely in spite of those irritated into furnishing it. Oh, I understand why rhetoric gets a bad name. No fool ever likes being made to look foolish. That's worth doing, in public, as often as possible, with the kind of person it takes to look utilitarianism full in the face, 'repugnant conclusion' and all, and still embrace it.
    - klipt 1y ago
      > For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me. Easy, your utility function is an indicator on WWPTD (What Would a Priest of Tezcatlipoca Do)? +1000 when your actions are in accordance with a priest of Tezcatlipoca, and -1000 when they are not. Like string theory, you can make utilitarianism fit anything. So on its own, it is neither good nor evil. It entirely depends on which utility function.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        Which is where we came in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826880 I appreciate your honesty.