37

kbog comments on Introducing CEA's Guiding Principles - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: kbog  (EA Profile) 15 July 2017 12:09:24AM *  0 points [-]

Those radicalization factors you mentioned increase the likelihood for terrorism but are not necessary

Yeah, and you probably think that being a negative utilitarian increases the likelihood for terrorism, but it's not necessary either. In the real world we deal with probabilities and expectations, not speculations and fantasies.

Saying that people don't commit terror from reading philosophical papers and thus those papers are innocent and shouldn't be criticized is a pretty weak argument. Of course, such papers can influence people. The radicalization process starts with philosophy

This is silly handwaving. The radicalization process starts with being born. It doesn't matter where things 'start' in the abstract sense, what matters is what causes the actual phenomenon of terrorism to occur.

to say that first step doesn't matter because the subsequent steps aren't yet publicly apparent shows that you are knowingly trying to allow this form of radicalization to flourish

So your head is too far up your own ass to even accept the possibility that someone who has actually studied international relations and counterinsurgency strategy knows that you are full of shit. Cool.

I am not a troll. I am concerned about public safety.

You are a textbook concern troll.

My city almost burned to ashes last year due to a forest fire, and I don't want others to have to go through that

Welcome to EA, honey. Everyone here is altruistic, you can't get special treatment.

That's the kind of thing that NUEs are promoting

But they're not. You think they're promoting it, or at least you want people to think they're promoting it. But that's your own opinion, so presenting it like this constitutes defamation.

If you're wondering why I don't elaborate my position on “EAs” promoting terrorism/genocide, it is for two reasons. One, it is self-evident if you read Tomasik and FRI materials (not all of it, but some articles).

But I have read those materials. And it's not self-evident. And other people have read those articles and they don't find them self-evident either. Actually, it's self-evident that they don't promote it, if you read some of their materials.

And two, I can easily cause a negative effect by connecting the dots for those susceptible to the message or giving them destructive ideas they may not have thought of.

What bullshit. If you actually worried about this then you wouldn't be saying that it's a direct, self-evident conclusion of their beliefs. So either you don't know what you're doing, or you're arguing in bad faith. Probably both.