12 ms·

It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. When your parents confided to you that Santa C

by skwirl 13y ago

It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. When your parents confided to you that Santa Claus wasn't real, you didn't suddenly become adopted too. Chill out and reacquaint with reality.

jychang 13y ago
You completely misread the point. We don't know the truth, if it was foul play or not. Probably not. BUT, it doesn't matter about the size of the jump, yet the fact that it's even a POSSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ... is scary. Plus, it's not as large of a leap as you think, it goes hand in hand. Everyone is familiar with journalists disappearing in countries like Turkey.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Yeah, but the thing is, governments -- and individuals within governments -- don't have to be super secret ninjas. They can be heavy handed and get away with it because they've got power and you don't. The US sent helicopters full of Navy Seals into a foreign country, supposedly an ally, without their permission to kill someone, and then went on TV the next day to brag about it. George W Bush threw hundreds of people into a not-very-secret off-shore prison and then tortured them for a few years and no one did a damn thing about it. When Bradley Manning leaked diplomatic cables, we threw him in a prison and tortured him for a year or three, depending on how you count. Governments don't have to come in the night and fake your accidental death. They can come for you in broad daylight and beat you to death in the street and no one will stop them.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Are you saying governments don't do anything secret, because they don't have to ? Well, you are surely misguided. Tons of governmental operations are clearly not happening in the open. And it wouldn't be the first time they make an assassination pass for an accident (or suicide, or whatever other "natural" event). Even "democracies" do that all the time.
- glhaynes 13y ago
  No, you don't get to do that. You can't say "I'm speculating that this person might have been murdered. Wow, look at what the world is coming to, that people are even considering the possibility that this person was murdered. (Besides, sometimes people do get murdered...)" This is begging the question in its most basic form.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Well, not quite begging the question, in that it's not something you're assuming to be true but rather something you're causing to be trivially true, but it's still an odd and presumably invalid construction to be sure.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    If you are using your suspicion as an argument to prove that Hastings was murdered. If you are saying that you are sad or afraid that you are suspicious when once you wouldn't have been, that's just a simple statement of fact. I don't think you can ever legitimately accuse someone of a logical fallacy who isn't making an argument.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Reality? To which reality are you referring? How are you so certain what the reality here is or is not? How is your version of reality any more or less likely to be the truth? So, no one has proven what happened. That cuts both ways. And that's the point: there are unanswered questions. No one is stating for a fact that foul play was involved. People are merely asking questions. And, given the plausibility of foul play and the incredibly mind-blowing implications if there was foul play, it is much more rational to ask questions than to summarily dismiss out of hand that it is worth asking questions, or to ridicule those who do. Your post doesn't come off as clever. It just seems thoughtless and unserious.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false, and if you believed that to be the case you would be horribly calibrated in your judgements, and parent would be right to criticize it. Plausibility is of course a much lower standard, but there is still some correct level of belief; I disagree with the parent in asserting that it is clearly below "plausible" but it's a legitimate discussion.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false I didn't say that. Go back and read my post. In fact, it's the opposite. We have many trying to claim the illegitimacy of asking questions, because there is no direct evidence. The parent went so far as to ridicule those asking questions. So, it is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction. That is exactly what my post was about.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken. I recommend reading through http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis
dllthomas 13y ago
Because law enforcement abusing power and doing crazy shit flat out never happens. I agree that foul play doesn't seem like the most likely cause, and I don't expect it is systemic if so, but seeing "he was on to a pocket of more explicit corruption and they offed him" as outside the realm of possibility seems odd.
JackFr 13y ago
Reality -- is that the place where our President has an American citizen, without trial or court order, killed by a drone? Yeah, it is. So while not proven, certainly not beyond the pale from what we do know is true.
latj 13y ago
When you tell your kid Santa Claus isnt real, they already know. But when you admit it its often the first time they realize that their parents lie. If Santa Claus is fake, the Easter Bunny is probably fake too. Then one day they are sitting in church and a picture of Jesus Christ falls out of someone's bag and onto the floor. Your kid sits there, starring at upside down Jesus, and cant help but notice how much he looks like his school bus driver. After that, all the lies of the adult world unravel.
smky80 13y ago
I can't help but notice the vast majority of your comments over the time you've been here are basically NSA spying apologism.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. Well, there was Putin being all concerned about Snowden hurting his American friends, so there's that :P Seriously though, the US government killed plenty more people for minding them a lot less. So where exactly does this huge leap come into play? That it would be hard to do? Why, just look at what random comment is floating atop this discussion, completely unfounded speculation about drug abuse or nervous breakdowns, with zero argument for them given, except that it's technically possible, however unlikely. Are you denying that it's "technically possible" that the US government "goes around killing journalists" (which is NOT what the comment you replied to said by the way, that's all yours), however unlikely? If not, why not react with the same rigour to the original comment? This is all kinda disgusting. Yes, we don't know either way, and maybe it's pointless to speculate. But if it's okay to speculate some utter bullshit like the top comment, then it's allowed to point something out in response without that being utterly twisted into something childish, and then being patronizing about your own fucking strawman.
coldtea 13y ago
>It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. Really how? How is it out of order for a government that goes around jailing foreign citizens without trial abroad to avoid local laws?

by skwirl 13y ago

jychang 13y ago

You completely misread the point. We don't know the truth, if it was foul play or not. Probably not. BUT, it doesn't matter about the size of the jump, yet the fact that it's even a POSSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ... is scary. Plus, it's not as large of a leap as you think, it goes hand in hand. Everyone is familiar with journalists disappearing in countries like Turkey.

saalweachter 13y ago
Yeah, but the thing is, governments -- and individuals within governments -- don't have to be super secret ninjas. They can be heavy handed and get away with it because they've got power and you don't. The US sent helicopters full of Navy Seals into a foreign country, supposedly an ally, without their permission to kill someone, and then went on TV the next day to brag about it. George W Bush threw hundreds of people into a not-very-secret off-shore prison and then tortured them for a few years and no one did a damn thing about it. When Bradley Manning leaked diplomatic cables, we threw him in a prison and tortured him for a year or three, depending on how you count. Governments don't have to come in the night and fake your accidental death. They can come for you in broad daylight and beat you to death in the street and no one will stop them.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Are you saying governments don't do anything secret, because they don't have to ? Well, you are surely misguided. Tons of governmental operations are clearly not happening in the open. And it wouldn't be the first time they make an assassination pass for an accident (or suicide, or whatever other "natural" event). Even "democracies" do that all the time.
glhaynes 13y ago
No, you don't get to do that. You can't say "I'm speculating that this person might have been murdered. Wow, look at what the world is coming to, that people are even considering the possibility that this person was murdered. (Besides, sometimes people do get murdered...)" This is begging the question in its most basic form.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Well, not quite begging the question, in that it's not something you're assuming to be true but rather something you're causing to be trivially true, but it's still an odd and presumably invalid construction to be sure.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  If you are using your suspicion as an argument to prove that Hastings was murdered. If you are saying that you are sad or afraid that you are suspicious when once you wouldn't have been, that's just a simple statement of fact. I don't think you can ever legitimately accuse someone of a logical fallacy who isn't making an argument.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Reality? To which reality are you referring? How are you so certain what the reality here is or is not? How is your version of reality any more or less likely to be the truth? So, no one has proven what happened. That cuts both ways. And that's the point: there are unanswered questions. No one is stating for a fact that foul play was involved. People are merely asking questions. And, given the plausibility of foul play and the incredibly mind-blowing implications if there was foul play, it is much more rational to ask questions than to summarily dismiss out of hand that it is worth asking questions, or to ridicule those who do. Your post doesn't come off as clever. It just seems thoughtless and unserious.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false, and if you believed that to be the case you would be horribly calibrated in your judgements, and parent would be right to criticize it. Plausibility is of course a much lower standard, but there is still some correct level of belief; I disagree with the parent in asserting that it is clearly below "plausible" but it's a legitimate discussion.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false I didn't say that. Go back and read my post. In fact, it's the opposite. We have many trying to claim the illegitimacy of asking questions, because there is no direct evidence. The parent went so far as to ridicule those asking questions. So, it is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction. That is exactly what my post was about.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken. I recommend reading through http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis

dllthomas 13y ago

Because law enforcement abusing power and doing crazy shit flat out never happens. I agree that foul play doesn't seem like the most likely cause, and I don't expect it is systemic if so, but seeing "he was on to a pocket of more explicit corruption and they offed him" as outside the realm of possibility seems odd.

JackFr 13y ago

Reality -- is that the place where our President has an American citizen, without trial or court order, killed by a drone? Yeah, it is. So while not proven, certainly not beyond the pale from what we do know is true.

latj 13y ago

When you tell your kid Santa Claus isnt real, they already know. But when you admit it its often the first time they realize that their parents lie. If Santa Claus is fake, the Easter Bunny is probably fake too. Then one day they are sitting in church and a picture of Jesus Christ falls out of someone's bag and onto the floor. Your kid sits there, starring at upside down Jesus, and cant help but notice how much he looks like his school bus driver. After that, all the lies of the adult world unravel.

smky80 13y ago

I can't help but notice the vast majority of your comments over the time you've been here are basically NSA spying apologism.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. Well, there was Putin being all concerned about Snowden hurting his American friends, so there's that :P Seriously though, the US government killed plenty more people for minding them a lot less. So where exactly does this huge leap come into play? That it would be hard to do? Why, just look at what random comment is floating atop this discussion, completely unfounded speculation about drug abuse or nervous breakdowns, with zero argument for them given, except that it's technically possible, however unlikely. Are you denying that it's "technically possible" that the US government "goes around killing journalists" (which is NOT what the comment you replied to said by the way, that's all yours), however unlikely? If not, why not react with the same rigour to the original comment? This is all kinda disgusting. Yes, we don't know either way, and maybe it's pointless to speculate. But if it's okay to speculate some utter bullshit like the top comment, then it's allowed to point something out in response without that being utterly twisted into something childish, and then being patronizing about your own fucking strawman.

coldtea 13y ago

>It is a huge leap from the revelations of late and a world where the government goes around killing journalists. Really how? How is it out of order for a government that goes around jailing foreign citizens without trial abroad to avoid local laws?