Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#201

Post by maxlybbert »

lucisferre wrote: post #135
oskarth wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may be right that future generations will condemn us for them, none of those things are remotely controversial enough. You can say any of them in almost any setting and people will mostly yawn. Many people think prisons should be banished, or at least severely limited (especially US prisons); there are plenty of popular vegetarians out there; assisted suicided is just your average polarizing subject. This i…

If TV news has taught me anything it is that the number of people who vehemently (even violently) disagree with my (probably only moderately) progressive opinions is not small. My guess is most of us just tend to associate with people who have a similar spectrum of opinions and biases.

Yes, that's the point of the old "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him" quote ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Alleged_Nixon_quo... ). It's hard to remember, but Nixon won a larger share of the vote in 1972 than any previous president, which left McGovern fans somewhat shellshocked.

The quote is often used a proof that Pauline Kael was clueless, but, IIRC, she began by saying "many of my liberal friends have told me ...," i.e., she wasn't truly perplexed by Nixon's victory. Instead, she was pointing out that there are downsides to being insular about politics.

The difference between you and the vast majority of the population is that you recognize there are dissenting viewpoints held by people you've never met.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#202

Post by icebraining »

csomar wrote: post #165
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

I think religion and god will come first. Most of our issues come from religious books and ideas.

If my country's is anything to go by, I don't think so. The thing is, people are great at labeling themselves as religious of while managing to progressively ignore everything that doesn't fit what they actually believe in. Which is why, for example, 60%+ of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics support the legalization of the abortion, let alone milder subjects like contraception and divorce.

So since religion as a label will stay for much longer than the actual harmful religious beliefs, people tend to disregard religion as the problem in itself. The ones that harm based on religious beliefs are just considered "fanatics".

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#204

Post by smellf »

hobs wrote: post #55
brd wrote: post #30

"Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?" I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate from yesterday. How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far more…

I had this thought this morning, though of a slightly different tone. The radio talking head mentioned that they were going to interview an anti-civilizationist, someone who apparently thinks that developed society is unsustainable and will be the end of us all. Apparently he advocates for a return to pre-civilization? I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If this involves some sac…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#205

Post by tunesmith »

gautamnarula wrote: post #192
ucarion wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you about most of those phobias, but I strongly disagree about Islamophobia. I think future societies will be surprised by how much human suffering we permit in the name of being "tolerant". Religions are not all created equal, and no intellectually honest person will claim that Islam and Jainism are equally valid moral frameworks (this is why few people fret about Jainophobia). We know that Islam and it…

Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, wrote an interesting post on Islamophobia and how he believes it doesn't actually exist, at least not in the framework that we normally consider phobias: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controve... The relevant part: The meaning of “Islamophobia” is not at all like the meanings of those other terms. It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice agai…

I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who practices Islam is "deeply committed to the actual doctrines" as practiced by the hijackers, which is false. He's implying that people who practice Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs, when in reality they will target them by their headwear (see the various crimes against Sikhs, one of the gosh-darn nicest religions in the world). Every time I read something by Harris my blood boils a bit because of how insidious his pseudo-logic is.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#206

Post by lambdaphage »

lmg643 wrote: post #168
nostromo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, you're not trying hard enough. :) Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism, agism, Islamophobia, homophobia. There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN! I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men…

HIV transmission is a good example of a wildly controversial topic, that is actually no longer discussed. it's considered a settled issue that everyone is equally likely to get HIV. on IQ - I'm not sure that's necessarily true, or at least, the differences are complex (one group has a slightly higher average, the other a higher standard deviation, which has implications at the right-end of the bell curve). but for da…

> it's considered a settled issue that everyone is equally likely to get HIV.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Under every interpretation I can think of, it is incorrect. In the first place, people vary in their CD4 and CCR5 (&c.) receptors, so they also vary in their susceptibility to HIV infection given exposure. My understanding is that some alleles confer such resistance to infection that carriers are considered naturally immune. As ever in immunology, that's not the entire story, but it certainly enough to falsify the view that "everyone is equally likely to get HIV" _even given exposure_.

More importantly, people have different rates of exposure. Those rates depend on what sort of potential transmission events one faces, and the prevalence of infection among partners for potential transmission events. Both of those differ between groups of people.

Hence, not everyone is equally likely to get HIV. That implies nothing, of course, about what we ought to _do_ about that.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#207

Post by kiba »

scoofy wrote: post #160
existencebox wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm split on #2. I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feel…

Just because you are a predator, just because it may be "natural," doesn't make our current system of meat production morally acceptable. I generally am sympathetic with what you're saying, however, I'm mostly pescatarian due to the issues you completely overlook. So, without getting into the arguments about whether or not humans ought to eat meat (for argument's sake, let's assume we were carnivores, and could not s…

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right either.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#208

Post by marvin »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Great point. I'm a Christian and also a scientist. I am very reluctant to share my religious beliefs with peers. And I keep my mouth firmly shut whenever someone cites Dawkins, Harris et.al. on the part of their writings that assesses the general intellectual competency of religious people and (peaceful) religious communities.

A couple of times I've tried the philosophical argument, but I get shot down every time. It's easier to just stuff it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#209

Post by estebank »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52
waps wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church. And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read…

That Socrates thing is curious. His crime: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young." Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?

Not saying this is the case, but giving bogus reasons makes it impossible to mount a defense. If I say you have invisible murderers at your home, it would be hard to discredit me in front of a jury that believes in invisible people.

It's a less subtle attack than "have you stopped hitting your wife yet?"

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#210

Post by namenotrequired »

sdegutis wrote: post #147
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

1. It's true they don't focus enough on rehabilitation and too much on punishment, and that sucks. 2. Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it. 3. Nope. So completely and utterly wrong.

2. Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it.

Just like murder, rape, spreading disease, slavery...

To my knowledge, animals have little to no moral consciousness, so I don't think "Animals do it" can justify any moral opinion.

Post reply on HN