I make a similar argument about gun control. Most of my friends are advocates of stronger regulation. They *think* I'm also an advocate of such. And, objectively, I am because I sometimes parrot a subset of their arguments. E.g. I argue that there are multiple types of cause (perhaps 4: formal, final, efficient, material). And, yes the gun nuts hinge their arguments on efficient cause, which is fine. But it's irresponsible to ignore the material cause: guns. But those who know me, know I'm an inherent supporter of weapon freedom. Anyone ought to be able to own (and use) pretty much any weapon they want. I don't vote that way, though. And most of my acquaintances don't know that about me. My 2-faced position depends fundamentally on my belief that human life just isn't that important. I think, say, cougars[†] and bacteria have just as much right to life as humans. And, to some extent, humans are destroying the ecosystem. So, it's difficult for me to keep a straight face and claim that human life is somehow sacred. (It's even easier now that I have cancer.) So, yeah, more guns = more dead people. Personally, that's OK with me. Politically, however, it's a reality and if we all *understand* that more guns means more dead people ... and we don't want more dead people, then the only rational thing is to more strictly regulate (or eliminate) guns.
[†] https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/09/hunt_for_killer_cougar_in_oreg.html The Peterson/Harris argument is mostly about dogma. But if we munge the words/concepts a bit, we could just as easily make it about schema, where some of the variables are bound and others are free. I think if we did that, it would be trivial to admit both that this weaker form of dogma (arrived at by bio- or cultural evolution) does not disallow the rationalist the freedom to update the schema whenever some multi-objective optimization algorithm suggests it needs updating. I think, the problem with the 2nd video (their 2nd night of discussion) was that they just danced around our tendency to dichotomize *everything* always. It's just another example of how artificial discretization prevents people who agree on 90% of everything from codifying where they disagree. On 09/14/2018 10:03 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think you could make the case that ISIS terrorists are terrorists because > it has given them something to believe-in and something to do with their > lives. > > It is only with the application of a prevalent value system that we equate > terrorists with badness. Many junkies outside 7-Elevens are lost souls and > will have abbreviated lives. They are unable to thrive. In contrast, a > military commander in Hamas living in the Gaza Strip may have miserable > conditions to cope with, but they are respected by a group of people and > aren't depressed. This was sort of Ted Kaczynski's point that technology > raises the bar to the point many people can't function any more. > > Another example are the stories > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/911-lessons-veteran.html> of > (U.S.) soldiers who live in terrible conditions but bond tightly with their > peers, people they might never be close to in civilian life. > > Objectively they are in danger every day, but psychologically they crave the > bond and the engagement in the fight. > > > > Either moral relativists or full-on nihilists see that threads of subjective > reality can and sometimes should be independent. I would argue that is > useful on average at a universal level because it expands understanding > rather than being prescriptive. Peterson’s own arguments about how men > rise to greatness in organizations admits that things can take care of > themselves. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
