I think you could use a better example for “structure purist, content neutral”: that’s where carefully crafted deception (without being actually false) would go, and you undersell it by using a polite “white lie” as your central example.
Even a libertarian might eventually recognize that the refrain “internalize your externalities” is being used to exploit him: all anyone who wants to infringe on his liberty needs to do is utter the phrase and then make up an externality to suit.
You may not engage in homosexual activity because of the externality of God smiting the city and/or sending a hurricane.
You must be confined to your house and wear a mask because of the externality of grandma dying.
You may not own a gun because of the externality of children getting shot.
You must wear a headscarf because of the externality of … I dunno, Allah causing armageddon?
You may not eat hamburgers because of the externality of catastrophic climate collapse.
You may not use plastic straws because of the externality of sea turtles suffocating.
all humans gets rights and the vote.
It seems like all your preceding reasoning has been motivated by wanting to get to this point.
Is the concept of honor so alien that you consider it “incredible” when men show it? You seem to be mocking the very idea with terms like “pinky promise” and “just trust me bro,” but trusting a man, even your enemy, to keep his word isn’t absurd.
If your model of international relations is the recent case of America responding to Russia denouncing the breaking of its promise not to expand NATO eastward with “Ha ha, you should have gotten it in writing!”, I think it’s clear that not all states behave so perfidiously.
I though I was quite clear, but very well: if, as you advocate, the government bans widely used ingredients because “replacements” exist, if the new alternatives are protected by patents (as is typical) you advantage the powerful companies by preventing their (newer, poorer, weaker) competition from using the older off-patent products.
Perhaps I was too charitable in assuming you hadn’t realized who benefits from your policies. If so, I apologize.
Your last paragraph reminds me of the time CFCs were banned right after DuPont’s critical patent on the manufacture of Freon expired: you’re being a useful idiot for the executives you think you’re beating.
Type (or copy-and-paste) ``Mądry″.
Run XeLaTeX instead.
“Disagree and commit” is a good policy for servants and subordinates (which seems to be context it’s meant for). Among free and equal men, “When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world, ‘No, you move’” is better: if you disagree, you don’t actually have to commit to whatever the consensus decision is.
I like the Voltaire (actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall) quote as much as the next guy, but if you would punish me for honestly saying what I believe (“freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences”), “Fuck you, I’m gonna lie to you” is the morally sound response. That works even if it’s society as a whole punishing me: I reject entirely your supposed duty to honestly state one’s beliefs.
agreeing to recognize Israel within the 1948 borders, and to demilitarization
What you’re describing is at best a protectorate, not a sovereign state. (Yes, I know there are some that like to style themselves “protected states” instead.)
I don’t see why this is better than Israel simply conquering the place outright, appointing a governor, and then letting it (or even helping it) develop economically, to become a new Singapore or whatever.
Is there a prediction market on whether he’ll be reinstated?
How many e’s are supposed to be in that word?
Embrace the diaresis! Say “peeër.”
Why do you believe this complicated policy is better than simply lying?
Wisdom is well-calibrated intelligence: enough not to get exploited, but not so much that it provokes hatred.
Who said anything about slowly and painfully?
Me. And I don’t actually endorse that. That was my point.
And my comments are threatening? Saying I’d defend with my life my loved ones from those (like you) who are happy for them to die to achieve their goals? Sure, I guess, but I stand by that.
Though I may have said otherwise, I do not, in fact, seriously want all “AI safety” researchers to die slowly and painfully, and would not be willing to risk my life to achieve that.
People willing to trade off the lives of my loved ones “for the greater good,” on the other hand, yes, certainly. (I do not, however, see a feasible way of getting rid of all of you, or even an appreciable fraction, even at the cost of my life, so rest easy, my fanatical ideals aren’t going to translate into deeds.)
If you met a race of aliens, intelligent, friendly, etc., would you “turn into a Warhammer 40K Inquisitor” who considers the xenos unworthy of any moral consideration whatsoever? If not, why not?
Everyone’s immortality. They don’t typically make cartoon villains like that.
I’m quite happy with … you dying, and your loved ones dying
It’s good of you to say that so plainly. I’ll return the favor and say that I’d run a substantial risk of death if it meant getting rid of you and people like you, to make the world a safer place for my loved ones.
“In the name of the greatest species that has ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say humanism now, humanism tomorrow, and humanism forever.”