Comment by textninja | Hacker News Reader

Comment by textninja | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kill you.

For 2, I disagree - you may want chemicals in your well if they’re designed to counteract the poison that was already in there. See 1.

In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality?

For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on.

> no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists

How fallible are we talking here? “Probably” is carrying an awful lot of weight in that argument.

> You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed.

That’s just like your opinion, man.

N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3.

> That’s just like your opinion, man.

Yes, a state of affairs I indicated by using the qualifier 'think.' :) Writing is a competition for the opinions of your readership -- what did you take yourself to be doing?

> In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality?

No analogy can be extended indefinitely, or you wouldn't be working with an analogy, you'd be observing an identity. It doesn't work, rhetorically, to take someone's analogy and point out that it is not `===` with the analogand. That's basically just an assertion that analogy is impossible.

Given the analogical elements introduced by the original toot, it works.

If I liken thee to a summer's day, it is no fault of mine that you have no solstice.

> For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on.

No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. The SAIC? (with apologies to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago)

> No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC.

We may disagree even more than you think ;)

I was pointing out the self-own: that your stated position motivates an outcome orthogonal to your values.

Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)

> Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)

I mean, I did use 3 out of 8 points to rag on ethicists.

Wait till you find out Nozick was an ethicist, that libertarianism is a position within political philosophy (which in turn is a generalization of ethics.)

I’m a programmer, not a philosopher, so I never actually heard of him, but from his Wikipedia entry I learned that “he rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by Locke and most contemporary capitalist-oriented libertarian academics,” and let’s just say it didn’t say anything about him getting fired from his job.

> N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3

Your most important point is the distinction between an assumption and a presupposition? I honestly didn’t see the need to challenge that.

*premise. Yes, this is basic Logic 101 stuff. Not even higher-order logic.

If you mistake an explicit premise for an unstated assumption, and shout 'gotcha!', you're in the weeds.

We’re on two very different wavelengths my friend.

I think what’s happening is that I’m arguing between the lines and you’re arguing on them. It’s like matter and antimatter, but no matter.

Rather, you're not arguing using coherent logic, you're making a series of logic-ish maneuvers that yield persuasive emotional appeals -- which, yes, is perfectly valid rhetoric-work, provided you haven't taken a knife to a gunfight.

You say you're 'arguing between the lines.' Do you code between them, as well?

> You say you're 'arguing between the lines.' Do you code between them, as well?

Wouldn’t it be impressive if I did?

no; that's how we all begin.

> Yes, this is basic Logic 101 stuff. Not even higher-order logic.

Best practice is to forget everything you ever learned in a 101 class. And don’t bring logic to a word fight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com