We may disagree about what it means to “disagree”.
Eliezer’s complete response to your original posting was:
Would you kill babies if it was intrinsically the right thing to do? If not, under what other circumstances would you not do the right thing to do? If yes, how right would it have to be, for how many babies?
EDIT IN RESPONSE: My intended point had been that sometimes you do have to fight the hypothetical.
This, you take as evidence that he is “bothered on a fundamental level”, and you imply that this being “bothered on a fundamental level”, whatever that is, is evidence that he is wrong and should just give up the “simple falsehood” that truth is desirable.
This is argument by trying to bother people and claiming victory when you judge them to be bothered.
Since my argument in this case is that people can be “bothered”, then yes, it would be a victory.
However, since as far as I know Eliezer didn’t claim to be “unbotherable”, that doesn’t make Eliezer wrong, at least within the context of that discussion. Eliezer didn’t disagree with me, he simply refused the legitimacy of the hypothetical.
Eliezer’s complete response to your original posting was:
This, you take as evidence that he is “bothered on a fundamental level”, and you imply that this being “bothered on a fundamental level”, whatever that is, is evidence that he is wrong and should just give up the “simple falsehood” that truth is desirable.
This is argument by trying to bother people and claiming victory when you judge them to be bothered.
Since my argument in this case is that people can be “bothered”, then yes, it would be a victory.
However, since as far as I know Eliezer didn’t claim to be “unbotherable”, that doesn’t make Eliezer wrong, at least within the context of that discussion. Eliezer didn’t disagree with me, he simply refused the legitimacy of the hypothetical.