Not at all. Most bad things aren’t existential risks.
Bad things are not vulnerable to every argument, nor are they bad because they make absolutely every metric of negativity worse, but because on balance they make things worse. Good things are not validly supported by every possible argument, nor are they good because they improve absolutely everything, but because they are on balance good.
Nuclear war isn’t bad because it alters the laws of physics to make atmospheric nitrogen turn into Pepsi. Nor is it bad because it is an existential risk. It has little to do with either of those things.
Preventing nuclear war isn’t good because it’s a D&D quest where satisfying certain conditions unlocks a bag of holding that solves all landfill problems forever. There isn’t such a quest. Preventing nuclear war is still a good idea.
Arguments in favor of preventing nuclear war mostly fail, just like arguments for any conclusion. You can’t get away with writing a warm and fuzzy conclusion such as “prevent nuclear war” as your bottom line and expect everyone to just buy whatever argument you construct ostensibly leading to that conclusion.
However, I feel like I have done my part (even if I don’t fully think I have done my part) in maintaining a high level of discourse so long as my tone is at least somewhat less snarky/more civil than what I am responding to. It’s perhaps a way of rationalizing doing more or less what I want to do more or less whenever I want to do it; pretending to have the tone high ground as if it were something binary or perhaps tertiary, with one participant in the conversation or the other or neither having it, with how much better one is than the other counting for little.
I blame scope insensitivity!
Yet I would like to think that two of me conversing wold always be civil, what with each trying to be at least a bit more civil than the other. The system I feel is right isn’t so bad.
The obvious weakness would be misjudging intended and perceived levels of snark...
Not at all. Most bad things aren’t existential risks.
Bad things are not vulnerable to every argument, nor are they bad because they make absolutely every metric of negativity worse, but because on balance they make things worse. Good things are not validly supported by every possible argument, nor are they good because they improve absolutely everything, but because they are on balance good.
Nuclear war isn’t bad because it alters the laws of physics to make atmospheric nitrogen turn into Pepsi. Nor is it bad because it is an existential risk. It has little to do with either of those things.
Preventing nuclear war isn’t good because it’s a D&D quest where satisfying certain conditions unlocks a bag of holding that solves all landfill problems forever. There isn’t such a quest. Preventing nuclear war is still a good idea.
Arguments in favor of preventing nuclear war mostly fail, just like arguments for any conclusion. You can’t get away with writing a warm and fuzzy conclusion such as “prevent nuclear war” as your bottom line and expect everyone to just buy whatever argument you construct ostensibly leading to that conclusion.
Your comment’s wording could use some work then IMO.
I don’t disagree.
However, I feel like I have done my part (even if I don’t fully think I have done my part) in maintaining a high level of discourse so long as my tone is at least somewhat less snarky/more civil than what I am responding to. It’s perhaps a way of rationalizing doing more or less what I want to do more or less whenever I want to do it; pretending to have the tone high ground as if it were something binary or perhaps tertiary, with one participant in the conversation or the other or neither having it, with how much better one is than the other counting for little.
I blame scope insensitivity!
Yet I would like to think that two of me conversing wold always be civil, what with each trying to be at least a bit more civil than the other. The system I feel is right isn’t so bad.
The obvious weakness would be misjudging intended and perceived levels of snark...
So. Upvoted.