Regardless of whether “murder” was the most appropriate label to use here, you were expressing a desire for the life of another human being to end so as to save you a minor annoyance. This is a sentiment that I and your other critics (I presume) find abhorrent; that you have compounded your signaling of disregard for human life by suggesting that criticism on the internet is sufficient justification for “simple assassination” leads me to suspect that either your moral philosophy is fundamentally inconsistent or you are a sociopath.
leads me to suspect that either your moral philosophy is fundamentally inconsistent or you are a sociopath.
Or, perhaps, that abstract anthropological discussion of the real use, and typical responses to, morality based social attacks are of interest to me. Far more interesting than signalling how naive and banal I can make my far mode moral philosophising sound.
The fact that you took ‘assassination’ out of the context of specific reference to various times and places, alongside ‘challenge them to a duel’ is significant. It made me think back, trying to recall whether you had previously made yourself an adversary. To understand what the conversation is really about.
or you are a sociopath.
This indicates that you don’t understand how sociopaths behave. Sociopaths are among the very best at signalling their moral virtue. They take the usual ability of humans to keep their far mode moral assertions and near mode actions uncorrelated and they make it an art-form. In most cases they would actually find it extremely difficult to segue from inside a battle for moral territory into epistemic observation about how such games actually play out. Nature and entrenched habit would make that extremely difficult for them.
Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.
Where do you think the actual metaphorical bullets are in this conversation? Here’s a hint: none of them have been fired based on bad argument.
The fact that you took ‘assassination’ out of the context of specific reference to various times and places, alongside ‘challenge them to a duel’ is significant. It made me think back, trying to recall whether you had previously made yourself an adversary. To understand what the conversation is really about.
Specific times and places are all well and good, but you said:
In various times and places better approaches to such situations have included: challenging the accuser to a duel, pressing a civil lawsuit for libel, public smear campaigns, Machiavellian political undermining or simple assassination.)
where the antecedent of “better” is “casual conversation” that “takes the form of questioning or the expectation of justification.”
I won’t speculate about what you meant by “better,” but it sounds like a moral judgment to me.
Regardless of whether “murder” was the most appropriate label to use here, you were expressing a desire for the life of another human being to end so as to save you a minor annoyance. This is a sentiment that I and your other critics (I presume) find abhorrent; that you have compounded your signaling of disregard for human life by suggesting that criticism on the internet is sufficient justification for “simple assassination” leads me to suspect that either your moral philosophy is fundamentally inconsistent or you are a sociopath.
Or, perhaps, that abstract anthropological discussion of the real use, and typical responses to, morality based social attacks are of interest to me. Far more interesting than signalling how naive and banal I can make my far mode moral philosophising sound.
The fact that you took ‘assassination’ out of the context of specific reference to various times and places, alongside ‘challenge them to a duel’ is significant. It made me think back, trying to recall whether you had previously made yourself an adversary. To understand what the conversation is really about.
This indicates that you don’t understand how sociopaths behave. Sociopaths are among the very best at signalling their moral virtue. They take the usual ability of humans to keep their far mode moral assertions and near mode actions uncorrelated and they make it an art-form. In most cases they would actually find it extremely difficult to segue from inside a battle for moral territory into epistemic observation about how such games actually play out. Nature and entrenched habit would make that extremely difficult for them.
Where do you think the actual metaphorical bullets are in this conversation? Here’s a hint: none of them have been fired based on bad argument.
Specific times and places are all well and good, but you said:
where the antecedent of “better” is “casual conversation” that “takes the form of questioning or the expectation of justification.”
I won’t speculate about what you meant by “better,” but it sounds like a moral judgment to me.
That meaning would make absolutely no sense in the context. It clearly means ‘more effective’.