3 ms·

Straw man. You can be a consequentialist but still see the absurd rhetoric of the 'war on terror', noting actual casualty numbers due to 'terrorism'.

by wfn 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago
300bps pointed out that means justify ends. If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes. (If it wouldn't, he would not defend his stats-based argument.) I point out that with right statistics one can justify anything. E.g. giving up one man's life for 5 lives is measurable and sounds solid. Why don't we do that? Because we all have this gut feeling that some things are plain wrong.
- 300bps 13y ago
  300bps pointed out that means justify ends I think what you meant to accuse me of is "ends justify means" but you're obviously a non-native English speaker so it's understandable. However, you are incorrect that I was saying "ends justify means". Instead I'm saying, "some ends justify some means". There's no legitimate point in attempting to ascribe a black and white philosophy to me. If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes. Not even close. You have to admit that you completely made that up and ascribed it to me when I had never said it. However, I will say that if 310 million Americans per year were dying of terrorism I would think NSA activity might be justified.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  You completely misread. Pretend you're looking at a theoretical 'wrong cure' for a problem. The first thing you should do is check if such a cure even works at all. Then you need to decide if it works well enough that you are willing to do something wrong. 300bps never said that you should automatically accept any wrong cure that works. Working is only one requirement.

3 ms·

Straw man. You can be a consequentialist but still see the absurd rhetoric of the 'war on terror', noting actual casualty numbers due to 'terrorism'.

by wfn 13y ago

Straw man. You can be a consequentialist but still see the absurd rhetoric of the 'war on terror', noting actual casualty numbers due to 'terrorism'.

oleganza 13y ago
300bps pointed out that means justify ends. If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes. (If it wouldn't, he would not defend his stats-based argument.) I point out that with right statistics one can justify anything. E.g. giving up one man's life for 5 lives is measurable and sounds solid. Why don't we do that? Because we all have this gut feeling that some things are plain wrong.
- 300bps 13y ago
  300bps pointed out that means justify ends I think what you meant to accuse me of is "ends justify means" but you're obviously a non-native English speaker so it's understandable. However, you are incorrect that I was saying "ends justify means". Instead I'm saying, "some ends justify some means". There's no legitimate point in attempting to ascribe a black and white philosophy to me. If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes. Not even close. You have to admit that you completely made that up and ascribed it to me when I had never said it. However, I will say that if 310 million Americans per year were dying of terrorism I would think NSA activity might be justified.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  You completely misread. Pretend you're looking at a theoretical 'wrong cure' for a problem. The first thing you should do is check if such a cure even works at all. Then you need to decide if it works well enough that you are willing to do something wrong. 300bps never said that you should automatically accept any wrong cure that works. Working is only one requirement.