Nope, nope, nope. Not clicking that video.
It wasn’t worth it.
I hope you guys won’t mind my responding to something that you guys seem to have already moved past. But I’ve seen this a lot, and have avoided addressing it. And this one particularly bothers me.
He never argued that. Here is what he said in that thread:
This isn’t an invalid point. You don’t just evaluate safety systems when they are working correctly. You should also look at the failures. And he’s far from the only one suggesting that Hollywood should shift away from using working firearms on set.
Did you comment on any of that? No. You just took that last line completely out of context, and then mocked it in a disingenuous way. You’re the one who comes off like you didn’t have a good argument.
And then in this thread, ASL just pitted you. He’s not saying he’s right because he cares about human lives more than you. He’s calling you a sociopath (obvious hyperbole) because the mere mention of her humanity caused you to flip out. It’s bizarre.
People have done that to me, too. I will make a point, and a single line will be taken out of context and then mocked, rather than engaging with me honestly. It sucks. I’m glad that, for once, the person got modded for it. I’m less glad that they didn’t seem to realize they screwed up.
It’s more than a little ironic that you are criticizing people for focusing on a small part of what someone has written, when if you had read more than a couple of posts in that thread it would have been obvious to you that I have commented extensively on all the substantive issues throughout the thread, including exchanges with this poster in particular.
@ASL_v2.0 had no evidence in support of his repeated assertion that this incident implies that real guns should not be allowed on movie sets, and was resorting to an appeal to emotion, one which does carry the offensive implication that the only reason anyone would disagree with him is that unlike him they just don’t care enough about the death of this person. The lack of evidence or sound arguments to back up his desired conclusion seems borne out by the fact that he left in a sulk and hasn’t returned to the thread.
In addition to this kind of appeal to emotion being fundamentally offensive, safety policy based on emotional reactions like “her death must not be in vain” results in more actual dead people in the future than safety policy based on evidence and rational analysis, so I’m really not much interested in being tone policed or whatever it is you think you’re doing to assert a position of moral superiority from your high horse.
I’m thinking people find it very hard to come off a statement they’ve made and may truly believe. Especially if it’s emotional and a core belief of theirs. They’ve invested themselves in it.
And some times there are subjects friends shouldn’t discuss with each other because it causes hurt feelings.
There are most likely ways to debate without this but I haven’t found them.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Better chug some ivermectin for that.
Wouldn’t you want an Ivermectin earwash instead?
Naw, that’s where you stick the light bulb.
I can’t speak to what I might have written six months or a year ago when the case was developing (mostly because I don’t have the time to go back over all 70+ posts I’ve made in that thread), but since this recent controversy arises out of comments I have (supposedly) made in the last month, please quote me on that. Quote me on where I make that assertion, even once since the thread at issue became active again, much less repeatedly.
Thanks in advance.
and was resorting to an appeal to emotion, one which does carry the offensive implication that the only reason anyone would disagree with him is that unlike him they just don’t care enough about the death of this person.
I am sorry that you are so devoid of basic human empathy as to think that an effort to ground a discussion in the real human consequences that have ensued under a particular system or scheme is “an appeal to emotion.”
Funny, because that actually seems like it’s what you’re doing.
“Appeal to emotion” isn’t the damning end of all argument the wannabe-Vulcans think it is, anyway. Pathos is as much and valid a part of rhetoric as logos.
Well, for a human it is at least.
Where rhetoric is the art to persuade, yes; not, however, as part of a reasoned, and dispassionate argument.
By definition passion isn’t part of a dispassionate argument, in much the same way that logic isn’t part of an illogical argument. So what?
I was trying to point out that effective rhetoric is not usually the goal here, and is not the same as a good argument. @ASL_v2.0 seemed to be objecting to the idea that he was employing rhetoric rather than reason.
To be perfectly clear, were you arguing that pathos is “not…part of a reasoned…argument”? I left out the words that make it trivially true.
If that’s what you’re arguing, you’re wrong.
If that’s not what you’re arguing, it’s unclear why you responded to @MrDibble.
Yes, that is what I am arguing.
Then you’re wrong. Passion can be part of a well-reasoned argument, and there’s no well-reasoned argument that shows otherwise. Ironically, it’s an irrational feeling people have that emotions make them uncomfortable.
It’s like saying that logic isn’t part of an impassioned speech because some impassioned speeches are illogical.
Yup.
Every argument is based in emotion. Without emotions, nobody would be able to care at all about what’s being argued about.
An argument based only on emotion and ignoring logical aspects is almost always a problem. But one with no emotional base just isn’t possible. At least, not for humans – but if the robots turn out to actually care whether they or anything else is destroyed, it’ll be because they’ve developed the equivalent of emotions; and if they’re just programmed to act as if they care, it’ll be because some being with emotions programmed them that way.
Oof, now you’ve stepped in it.
How can we differentiate a being that experiences emotion and acts accordingly from a being that is programmed to respond as if it had emotions?
How can you be sure that you are not just a being programmed to react as if it feels emotions, and your subjective state is an illusion?