Beyond the specifics (which Vasco goes into in his reply): These tweets are clearly not serious/principled/good-faith criticisms. If we are constantly moderating what we say to try to make sure that we don’t possibly give trolls any ammunition, then our discourse is forever at the mercy of those most hostile to the idea of doing good better. That’s not a good situation to be in. Far better, I say, to ignore the trolling.
I think this is a false binary. For sure we don’t have to always be at the “Mercy” of trolls, but we can be wise about what ideas to toss into any given public sphere at any point in time.
Saying crazy but philosophically valid things is fine as long as it’s useful. Many of our current morals would have looked crazy 300 years ago, so I’m glad people spoke up.
Nematode welfare is not productive conversation. The conclusions are clearly not tenable, the uncertainties too broad, the key questions (is a nematode life net good or bad) unanswerable. What is the purpose?
Beyond the specifics (which Vasco goes into in his reply): These tweets are clearly not serious/principled/good-faith criticisms. If we are constantly moderating what we say to try to make sure that we don’t possibly give trolls any ammunition, then our discourse is forever at the mercy of those most hostile to the idea of doing good better. That’s not a good situation to be in. Far better, I say, to ignore the trolling.
I think this is a false binary. For sure we don’t have to always be at the “Mercy” of trolls, but we can be wise about what ideas to toss into any given public sphere at any point in time.
Saying crazy but philosophically valid things is fine as long as it’s useful. Many of our current morals would have looked crazy 300 years ago, so I’m glad people spoke up.
Nematode welfare is not productive conversation. The conclusions are clearly not tenable, the uncertainties too broad, the key questions (is a nematode life net good or bad) unanswerable. What is the purpose?