Horrible posts by former posters!

[nsno-chris]

Was this the one who went on RAWK and moaned we’d turned him into a kopite? He was really special. Miss him loads.

Wasn’t that @blakefaa??

 

[chicoazul]

@Darkhorse ?

Different one I think bud.

 

[chicoazul]

Wasn’t that @blakefaa??

That’s him! The amazing mentalist! Couldn’t face what he’d done to the indigenous people, real shame.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Hang on, you're justifying throwing someones family out of a helicopter? Am I reading this right?

Never was.

I explained how, in a different state of the world, it would be justifiable. That state of the world is if it prevented other outcomes which are even more undesirable. If that were true, it would be justifiable. It's not true, so the action is not justifiable.

This is exactly what Machiavelli said. That content is what got Machiavelli in so much trouble with the Church. I would make a very strong argument that Machiavelli was right and that the Church was wrong.

You might try to argue with that from different priors. You're free to believe otherwise. I don't control your priors.

There are two problems with throwing people from the helicopter. One is that it won't work. The second is that we don't like what doing that does to us as people.

I would argue that Machiavelli was correct about the second point, which is that if it works and prevents much greater evil, we should accept the personal consequences because it is the right thing to do.

People don't actually understand Machiavelli's argument, because they don't read it and really listen to it. They bring too many priors to the table, and don't listen openly as a result. Machiavelli gets a bad rap as a consequence.

 

[PaddyJames]

Never was.

I explained how, in a different state of the world, it would be justifiable. That state of the world is if it prevented other outcomes which are even more undesirable. If that were true, it would be justifiable. It's not true, so the action is not justifiable.

This is exactly what Machiavelli said. That content is what got Machiavelli in so much trouble with the Church. I would make a very strong argument that Machiavelli was right and that the Church was wrong.

You might try to argue with that from different priors. You're free to believe otherwise. I don't control your priors.

There are two problems with throwing people from the helicopter. One is that it won't work. The second is that we don't like what doing that does to us as people.

I would argue that Machiavelli was correct about the second point, which is that if it works and prevents much greater evil, we should accept the personal consequences because it is the right thing to do.

People don't actually understand Machiavelli's argument, because they don't read it and really listen to it. They bring too many priors to the table, and don't listen openly as a result. Machiavelli gets a bad rap as a consequence.

Have you been drinking methylated spirits today?

 

[Martin Alvito]

Have you been drinking methylated spirits today?

Nope.

I have packed a lot of books into my head that do not agree with one another. I have spent years studying game theory, and working with it.

As a result, I learned to think independently. One of the nice things about game theory is that actually designing a model forces confronting exactly what you believe to be true, so that you can express that in the form of math. You have to clean your mind of priors in order to specify a model correctly.

Sorting through the content of all of those books in my head, free of priors, is how I learned to think independently.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Nope.

I have packed a lot of books into my head that do not agree with one another. I have spent years studying game theory, and working with it.

As a result, I learned to think independently. One of the nice things about game theory is that actually designing a model forces confronting exactly what you believe to be true, so that you can express that in the form of math. You have to clean your mind of priors in order to specify a model correctly.

Sorting through the content of all of those books in my head, free of priors, is how I learned to think independently.

How clever are you?

 

[Martin Alvito]

How clever are you?

I can't answer that without your definition of 'clever', in context. That could mean a lot of things, given the lack of context.

 

[PaddyJames]

Nope.

I have packed a lot of books into my head that do not agree with one another. I have spent years studying game theory, and working with it.

As a result, I learned to think independently. One of the nice things about game theory is that actually designing a model forces confronting exactly what you believe to be true, so that you can express that in the form of math. You have to clean your mind of priors in order to specify a model correctly.

Sorting through the content of all of those books in my head, free of priors, is how I learned to think independently.

Yeah I'll stick to not wanting someones innocent family to get thrown from a helicopter because.. you know I'm a sane human being who has also read plenty of books and studied alternative theories.

 

[roydo]

Haha...forgot about that one. Guess the land of Oz has produced multiple offenders.

He tried to re-register tons of times.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Yeah I'll stick to not wanting someones innocent family to get thrown from a helicopter because.. you know I'm a sane human being who has also read plenty of books and studied alternative theories.

This is because you have not yet learned to think independently, and bring a lot of priors about morality to the table.

You've accused me of drinking methylated spirits and, via subtext, of being insane. That's two ad hominem attacks intended to silence an argument you don't want to hear. I'm not the one with the problem here.

 

[PaddyJames]

This is because you have not yet learned to think independently, and bring a lot of priors about morality to the table.

You've accused me of drinking methylated spirits and, via subtext, of being insane. That's two ad hominem attacks intended to silence an argument you don't want to hear. I'm not the one with the problem here.

You are making an argument for families to be thrown from a helicopter. Absolutely revolting mindset and nothing to do with thinking independently, I've experienced enough in my life to be fully in control of my own mind. You appear to be struggling to keep up the pretence of being a free-thinker when in reality you are as transparent as glass. Stop trying so hard.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You are making an argument for families to be thrown from a helicopter. Absolutely revolting mindset and nothing to do with thinking independently, I've experienced enough in my life to be fully in control of my own mind. You appear to be struggling to keep up the pretence of being a free-thinker when in reality you are as transparent as glass. Stop trying so hard.

You need to go back and read what I actually said.

I am fully in control of my own mind. Listen. There is no pretense here. You're free to believe what you want to believe. Thinking independently is very, very dangerous. Most people that do that tend to come to very bad ends.

I make no judgment about whether or not you are right to refuse to think that openly. You are probably trying to maximize different preferences over outcomes. I was born needing to understand the insanity that surrounds me. It's what drives me. Fully understanding all of that requires accepting that there are arguments we don't much like that may well be valid anyway.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

I can't answer that without your definition of 'clever', in context. That could mean a lot of things, given the lack of context.

Ok, sorry. I thought you would give a better answer, no worries.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Ok, sorry. I thought you would give a better answer, no worries.

Apologies, I just can't provide a better answer without knowing what you mean.

From my perspective, it looks a lot like a setup. That may not be true, which was why I asked for clarification rather than blow you off.