I won’t reply to everyone individually, since I don’t want to swarm the site with posts about me, so I’ll just reply to everyone here. Thanks to those people who took time to point out what they objected to in my post. I especially appreciate the posts in this thread by Ishaan, Solipsist and such who gave valuable commentary and criticism while still being respectful. I’ve also come to appreciate that my biggest fault was perhaps the length of the post, which caused people to expect more than a simple thought experiment could deliver. I will try to keep the information density higher in any future posts, if I ever feel up to it again.
I must admit I am still surprised by the reaction to that one line about Ayn Rand, which I thought was largely irrelevant to the main point of the post. I definitely don’t see my post as a political rant in any way, as politics itself was merely used as an example. I suspect my fault here was that I had underestimated the apparent libertarian sympathies on this forum, and so I had not couched the political reference with sufficient disclaimers (Ayn Rand is not necessarily responsible for the behaviour of her followers, much like Richard Dawkins wasn’t responsible for the reaction to The Selfish Gene, etc. This doesn’t change the fact that both were used for political ends.)
I still feel that the reaction to my post asking why the response was so negative, whereupon some people went and downvoted every one of my posts without saying why, is incredibly unhelpful. I suspect that these people are an immature minority who would rather “punish” people who disagree with their political affiliation than actually engage with others in reasonable discussion. Fortunately I am not too bothered by karma, I was just confused and frustrated as to what the heck was going on.
I’ve also come to appreciate that my biggest fault was perhaps the length of the post, which caused people to expect more than a simple thought experiment could deliver.
No, your biggest flaw is that the thought experiment amounts to little more than an excuse to attack hated enemies. Specifically it looks like: if [philosophy you don’t approve of] can be associated (however tenuously) with [bad thing X], I as the devil will promote said philosophy. If [philosophy I approve of] is widely associated with [bad thing Y], I as the devil will seek to discredit said philosophy by associating it with [bad thing Y].
I must admit I am still surprised by the reaction to that one line about Ayn Rand, which I thought was largely irrelevant to the main point of the post.
Then why did you include it? See this post by EY where he advises against using political examples to illustrate not political points.
(Ayn Rand is not necessarily responsible for the behaviour of her followers, much like Richard Dawkins wasn’t responsible for the reaction to The Selfish Gene, etc. This doesn’t change the fact that both were used for political ends.)
Notice your attempt at guilt by association there. You are trying to associate the behavior of Ayn Rand’s followers with some of the bad behavior of people who read The Selfish Gene, without explicitly calling said behaviour bad, or providing any examples of bad behavior. All you mention is that she was “used for political ends”, well, duh, she was explicitly trying to be political. Another example is here were you appear to be trying to implicate Paul Ryan with supporting crony capitalism, without explicitly saying that he supports it (which would be false).
I won’t reply to everyone individually, since I don’t want to swarm the site with posts about me, so I’ll just reply to everyone here. Thanks to those people who took time to point out what they objected to in my post. I especially appreciate the posts in this thread by Ishaan, Solipsist and such who gave valuable commentary and criticism while still being respectful. I’ve also come to appreciate that my biggest fault was perhaps the length of the post, which caused people to expect more than a simple thought experiment could deliver. I will try to keep the information density higher in any future posts, if I ever feel up to it again.
I must admit I am still surprised by the reaction to that one line about Ayn Rand, which I thought was largely irrelevant to the main point of the post. I definitely don’t see my post as a political rant in any way, as politics itself was merely used as an example. I suspect my fault here was that I had underestimated the apparent libertarian sympathies on this forum, and so I had not couched the political reference with sufficient disclaimers (Ayn Rand is not necessarily responsible for the behaviour of her followers, much like Richard Dawkins wasn’t responsible for the reaction to The Selfish Gene, etc. This doesn’t change the fact that both were used for political ends.)
I still feel that the reaction to my post asking why the response was so negative, whereupon some people went and downvoted every one of my posts without saying why, is incredibly unhelpful. I suspect that these people are an immature minority who would rather “punish” people who disagree with their political affiliation than actually engage with others in reasonable discussion. Fortunately I am not too bothered by karma, I was just confused and frustrated as to what the heck was going on.
No, your biggest flaw is that the thought experiment amounts to little more than an excuse to attack hated enemies. Specifically it looks like: if [philosophy you don’t approve of] can be associated (however tenuously) with [bad thing X], I as the devil will promote said philosophy. If [philosophy I approve of] is widely associated with [bad thing Y], I as the devil will seek to discredit said philosophy by associating it with [bad thing Y].
Then why did you include it? See this post by EY where he advises against using political examples to illustrate not political points.
Notice your attempt at guilt by association there. You are trying to associate the behavior of Ayn Rand’s followers with some of the bad behavior of people who read The Selfish Gene, without explicitly calling said behaviour bad, or providing any examples of bad behavior. All you mention is that she was “used for political ends”, well, duh, she was explicitly trying to be political. Another example is here were you appear to be trying to implicate Paul Ryan with supporting crony capitalism, without explicitly saying that he supports it (which would be false).