[FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

[Marcus Daniels]

As you said, practical considerations often limit how much time can be spent understanding an adversary.    Thus it isn't clear how to me the abstract possibility of Evil is actually grounded?  At some point action must/will be taken because the other guy is will make the "vanquish" move.    All this poking and prodding is all very interesting up to medium levels of violence, but where's the line.  Is there a line?  (I think there isn't one.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 4:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

Yes. Nuking a city is Evil, just in case that needs saying.

On November 25, 2020 2:01:01 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>Macroviolence like Nagasaki may still be intended to "communicate", but 
>it also aims to vanquish.  Earlier you said that "But it's Evil to 
>insist you've learned all you need to know about some or another
>subject."  So it would be Evil to vanquish such an adversary?   There's
>always more to know about them, of course.  

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/