That has to be the most specious reasoning I've seen by anyone who isn't Homer Simpson ... Is that grip on Reality greasy enough for ya?
So, the international arms race exists sui generis, does it? ... No governments or their policies have the least impact or influence ... Skynet runs it all
Oooh, and let's not forget that there were no independant industrial complexes, such as Krupps, involved in the process of arming the Third Reich ... No, it was all the Nazi Party ... completely state-run
Here ... Perhaps you'd like to buy this rock - It keeps tigers at bay
That has to be the most specious reasoning I've seen by anyone who isn't Homer Simpson ... Is that grip on Reality greasy enough for ya?
Better "specious reasoning" than "certain ad hominem", but I digress. Since you bring up The Simpsons, I would remind of you of the lesson we all learned from I believe the 3rd or 4rd Halloween special - If we did manage to miraculously eliminate all weapons and desire to use them, we'd just be leaving ourselves completely vulnerable to a couple of tentacled aliens.
So, the international arms race exists sui generis, does it? ... No governments or their policies have the least impact or influence ... Skynet runs it all
No governments or their policies have the least impact on the fact that the arms race will continue. It will do so despite the participation of any one nation or group of nations. As with most other races: when you stop running, you just lose...they don't stop the race.
Oooh, and let's not forget that there were no independant industrial complexes, such as Krupps, involved in the
( ... )
You are falling prey to a number of fallacious concepts here it seems.
You seem to think that the specifics of one case or another are at all relevant to debating the issue of ethics/morality.
Whether or not we are discussing the modern Western arms race, or a Kindergarten squabble, is irrelevant.
Your argument hinges around the a priori axia:
1.1) that the supposition that another's actions would follow a certain course is justification for one's own chosen course
In Psychology this is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error - in poupulist terms 'projection': I would do that for these reasons, therefore that is this other's motivation.
This is pure paranoia and speculation in this instance and although your statement No governments or their policies have the least impact on the fact that the arms race will continue. It will do so despite the participation of any one nation or group of nations is scientific in the Popperian manner insofar as it is pefectly disprovable, you are syllogistically presupposing the null hypothesis
( ... )
Re: Response Part ImrexcisedMarch 4 2004, 08:25:10 UTC
You seem to think that the specifics of one case or another are at all relevant to debating the issue of ethics/morality.
No, I was simply not engaging in a debate about morality. What morality do you advocate we adopt for our military research and development? All in all, developing ways to allow humans to go without food for extended periods of time does not strike me as particularly "evil".
Whether or not we are discussing the modern Western arms race, or a Kindergarten squabble, is irrelevant.
That isn't at all reductionist of you.
that the supposition that another's actions would follow a certain course is justification for one's own chosen course
There is no moral justification for our arms development because arms development is not a moral task. Tools are designed and built. How the tools are used would seem to be where morality and justifications come into play.
In Psychology this is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error - in poupulist terms 'projection': I would do that for these reasons, therefore that is this
( ... )
Re: Response Part I(2)mrexcisedMarch 4 2004, 08:25:36 UTC
The Third Reich did not exist in a vaccuum - the arms race of today is not somehow new and different ... it is the same arms race that led to the existance of the Third Reich in the first place.
For the love of all that is good and holy will you pick up a damned history book already. An arms race lead to the existence of the Third Reich?!? What?!?
I'm also confused in that at this point you seem to be making my argument for me. Above, you say that it is conjecture that the arms race will continue (at least if I'm parsing the pseudointellectual jargon properly). Now you seem to be acknowledging that conjecture or not, the arms race is a permenant reality. Make up your mind.
Furthermore, not only is your argument based upon a speciously syllogistic process (you cannot use the existance/absence of concentration camps to justify a theory about the modern arms race that does not itself rely upon the existance/absense of concentration camps)Uhm...I was not using the existance/absence of concentration camps for anything at all. I was
( ... )
Of course there is cooperation involved in the maintainace of the arms race ... cooperation is the basis of all Human affairs. We cooperate in the belief that others will aggress us if they have the opportunity to do so and we are weaker. We collude in the belief that national borders should be sacrosanct and, therefore, defended against incursion by another. And the military/industrial complex(es) of the World cooperate to maintain their own continuation - without this cooperation there would be no military complexes at all ... the first conflict would be the last as the one nation with weaponry would rule the World; the others having not the wherewithal to withstand or resist ... Without the continuing cooperation of those bodies in whose interests it lies to maintain a state of conflict there would be no conflict, it would not be possible, QED
( ... )
Re: Response Part II(1)mrexcisedMarch 4 2004, 09:49:44 UTC
Of course there is cooperation involved in the maintainace of the arms race ... cooperation is the basis of all Human affairs. We cooperate in the belief that others will aggress us if they have the opportunity to do so and we are weaker.
You seem to be confusing "cooperation" with "correlation". No cooperation is involved in believing that others will aggress against us if they have the opportunity to do so, it is simply an observation most of us share in common.
We collude in the belief that national borders should be sacrosanct
I don't think that collusion or cooperation is necessary to develop de facto standards...you're ignoring evolution. Systems can evolve simply because they are the most effective, without any "intelligent design" of cooperation.
therefore, defended against incursion by another.
I don't think the sanctity of a border is the reason we defend it.
And the military/industrial complex(es) of the World cooperate to maintain their own continuation - without this cooperation there would be no military complexes
( ... )
Re: Response Part II(2)mrexcisedMarch 4 2004, 09:50:04 UTC
You made the leap from an assumption about behaviour (based upon the FAE) to a justification of a course of action.
The assumption is one that at various times you either seem to call into question or agree with yourself: that the global arms race will continue. I'll grant you that its conjecture if you grant me that its true. =)
We must also be careful to get our context correct on just what "course of action" we're really discussing here. I am not advocating the deployment or use of any specific military technology. My position is simply that the course of action of scientific inquiry and technological development is neither inherently good nor evil, and attempts to regulate it according to those standards inevidably leads to ignorance which leads to disadvantage. We must not EVER tell our scientists: "do not look there, do not think about this, do not consider this possibility". That is the way of ignorance.
Furthermore, you completely ignored the fact that the discussion concerned ethical rather than behavioural issuesNot at
( ... )
If, as you seem to, you wish to continue this discussion, please, therefore, be aware that what is being called into question on this thread is not merely the issue of pragmatics (about which, you may be surprised to discover, you and I may not necessarily disagree to any appreciable degree), but also that of the moral/ethical dimension ... it is much wider ranging than you might at first have supposed and you can expect to be challenged on many different issues, on many different levels, in many different dimensions - I, for one, will call into question any argument I perceive as having the least flaw ... and not necessarily because I disagree with the inherant suppositions or overt conclusions, but because I see an error in reasoning ... ... You will, indeed, as you suggest, be obliged to keep running, if you are even to stay in the race, never mind stand a chance of winning it
( ... )
If, as you seem to, you wish to continue this discussion, please, therefore, be aware that what is being called into question on this thread is not merely the issue of pragmatics (about which, you may be surprised to discover, you and I may not necessarily disagree to any appreciable degree), but also that of the moral/ethical dimension
I'm glad you saw and acknowledged this. It seems to be our primary point of contention...you're making a moral argument and I'm making a pragmatic one.
I think you would find that on a moral level we do not differ much either. I truly weep at the state of human affairs and nature...that we seem to be condemned to destroy ourselves. The more powerful the technology, the smaller the mistake must be that destroys us all.
... it is much wider ranging than you might at first have supposed and you can expect to be challenged on many different issues, on many different levels, in many different dimensions - I, for one, will call into question any argument I perceive as having the least flaw ... and not
( ... )
I cannot respond coherently here since the character limit imposed on replies would render the whole too disjointed to follow any more
So, I have posted the full set of replies and my responses on my LJ
It's been public up until now anyway ... and to a certain extent we both got off on the wrong foot.
When reading it, please bear in mind my preamble and the fact that I have chosen to maintain the tone of my initial responses (hostile as they were) to illustrate a couple of points:
1) I am as capable of making an ass of myself as anyone else and can be equally as undiscerningly hostile, patronising, childish as anyone - I'm not perfect
( ... )
Reply
If they didn't do it, someone else would
Reply
If they didn't do it, someone else would
In addition to your analogy being incongruent[0], you have invoked Godwin's Law.
[0] Someone set the goals and course of development for the NAZI party, not so with the international arms race...
Reply
So, the international arms race exists sui generis, does it? ... No governments or their policies have the least impact or influence ... Skynet runs it all
Oooh, and let's not forget that there were no independant industrial complexes, such as Krupps, involved in the process of arming the Third Reich ... No, it was all the Nazi Party ... completely state-run
Here ... Perhaps you'd like to buy this rock - It keeps tigers at bay
Reply
Better "specious reasoning" than "certain ad hominem", but I digress. Since you bring up The Simpsons, I would remind of you of the lesson we all learned from I believe the 3rd or 4rd Halloween special - If we did manage to miraculously eliminate all weapons and desire to use them, we'd just be leaving ourselves completely vulnerable to a couple of tentacled aliens.
So, the international arms race exists sui generis, does it? ... No governments or their policies have the least impact or influence ... Skynet runs it all
No governments or their policies have the least impact on the fact that the arms race will continue. It will do so despite the participation of any one nation or group of nations. As with most other races: when you stop running, you just lose...they don't stop the race.
Oooh, and let's not forget that there were no independant industrial complexes, such as Krupps, involved in the ( ... )
Reply
You seem to think that the specifics of one case or another are at all relevant to debating the issue of ethics/morality.
Whether or not we are discussing the modern Western arms race, or a Kindergarten squabble, is irrelevant.
Your argument hinges around the a priori axia:
1.1) that the supposition that another's actions would follow a certain course is justification for one's own chosen course
In Psychology this is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error - in poupulist terms 'projection': I would do that for these reasons, therefore that is this other's motivation.
This is pure paranoia and speculation in this instance and although your statement No governments or their policies have the least impact on the fact that the arms race will continue. It will do so despite the participation of any one nation or group of nations is scientific in the Popperian manner insofar as it is pefectly disprovable, you are syllogistically presupposing the null hypothesis ( ... )
Reply
No, I was simply not engaging in a debate about morality. What morality do you advocate we adopt for our military research and development? All in all, developing ways to allow humans to go without food for extended periods of time does not strike me as particularly "evil".
Whether or not we are discussing the modern Western arms race, or a Kindergarten squabble, is irrelevant.
That isn't at all reductionist of you.
that the supposition that another's actions would follow a certain course is justification for one's own chosen course
There is no moral justification for our arms development because arms development is not a moral task. Tools are designed and built. How the tools are used would seem to be where morality and justifications come into play.
In Psychology this is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error - in poupulist terms 'projection': I would do that for these reasons, therefore that is this ( ... )
Reply
For the love of all that is good and holy will you pick up a damned history book already. An arms race lead to the existence of the Third Reich?!? What?!?
I'm also confused in that at this point you seem to be making my argument for me. Above, you say that it is conjecture that the arms race will continue (at least if I'm parsing the pseudointellectual jargon properly). Now you seem to be acknowledging that conjecture or not, the arms race is a permenant reality. Make up your mind.
Furthermore, not only is your argument based upon a speciously syllogistic process (you cannot use the existance/absence of concentration camps to justify a theory about the modern arms race that does not itself rely upon the existance/absense of concentration camps)Uhm...I was not using the existance/absence of concentration camps for anything at all. I was ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You seem to be confusing "cooperation" with "correlation". No cooperation is involved in believing that others will aggress against us if they have the opportunity to do so, it is simply an observation most of us share in common.
We collude in the belief that national borders should be sacrosanct
I don't think that collusion or cooperation is necessary to develop de facto standards...you're ignoring evolution. Systems can evolve simply because they are the most effective, without any "intelligent design" of cooperation.
therefore, defended against incursion by another.
I don't think the sanctity of a border is the reason we defend it.
And the military/industrial complex(es) of the World cooperate to maintain their own continuation - without this cooperation there would be no military complexes ( ... )
Reply
The assumption is one that at various times you either seem to call into question or agree with yourself: that the global arms race will continue. I'll grant you that its conjecture if you grant me that its true. =)
We must also be careful to get our context correct on just what "course of action" we're really discussing here. I am not advocating the deployment or use of any specific military technology. My position is simply that the course of action of scientific inquiry and technological development is neither inherently good nor evil, and attempts to regulate it according to those standards inevidably leads to ignorance which leads to disadvantage. We must not EVER tell our scientists: "do not look there, do not think about this, do not consider this possibility". That is the way of ignorance.
Furthermore, you completely ignored the fact that the discussion concerned ethical rather than behavioural issuesNot at ( ... )
Reply
Reply
:)
Reply
I'm glad you saw and acknowledged this. It seems to be our primary point of contention...you're making a moral argument and I'm making a pragmatic one.
I think you would find that on a moral level we do not differ much either. I truly weep at the state of human affairs and nature...that we seem to be condemned to destroy ourselves. The more powerful the technology, the smaller the mistake must be that destroys us all.
... it is much wider ranging than you might at first have supposed and you can expect to be challenged on many different issues, on many different levels, in many different dimensions - I, for one, will call into question any argument I perceive as having the least flaw ... and not ( ... )
Reply
So, I have posted the full set of replies and my responses on my LJ
It's been public up until now anyway ... and to a certain extent we both got off on the wrong foot.
When reading it, please bear in mind my preamble and the fact that I have chosen to maintain the tone of my initial responses (hostile as they were) to illustrate a couple of points:
1) I am as capable of making an ass of myself as anyone else and can be equally as undiscerningly hostile, patronising, childish as anyone - I'm not perfect ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment