(answered at greater length elsewhere, but) This is isomorphic to saying “describing what is morally reprehensible about the God of the Old Testament causes severe distress to some theists, so atheists shouldn’t talk about it either”. Sunlight disinfects.
I’d discuss the moral reprehensibility of God (in both the new and the old testament) if and only if I saw the estimated benefit in attempting to deconvert those people as outweighing the disutility of their potential distress.
If you see such benefits in telling the people of the basilisk, and are weighing them against the disutility of the potential distress caused by such information, and the benefits indeed outweigh the hazard, then fine.
Your essential theory seems to be that if someone shines a light on a pothole, then it’s their fault if people fall into it, not that of whoever dug it.
The strategy of attempting to keep it a secret has failed in every way it could possibly fail. It may be time to say “oops” and do something different.
Your essential theory seems to be that if someone shines a light on a pothole, then it’s their fault if people fall into it, not that of whoever dug it.
Or, for that matter, the fault of whoever forbade the construction of safety rails around it.
To me it’s unclear whether you believe:
a) that it’s bad to try to keep the basilisk because such attempt was doomed to failure, or
b) that it’s bad to try to keep it hidden because it’s always bad to keep any believed-to-be infohazard hidden, regardless of whether you’ll succeed or fail,
or
c) that it’s bad to try to keep this basilisk hidden, because it’s not a real infohazard, but it would be good to keep real infohazards hidden, which actually harm people you share them to.
Can you clarify to me which of (a), (b) or (c) you believe?
Isn’t it on RW that these people read the basilisk in the first place?
(answered at greater length elsewhere, but) This is isomorphic to saying “describing what is morally reprehensible about the God of the Old Testament causes severe distress to some theists, so atheists shouldn’t talk about it either”. Sunlight disinfects.
I’d discuss the moral reprehensibility of God (in both the new and the old testament) if and only if I saw the estimated benefit in attempting to deconvert those people as outweighing the disutility of their potential distress.
If you see such benefits in telling the people of the basilisk, and are weighing them against the disutility of the potential distress caused by such information, and the benefits indeed outweigh the hazard, then fine.
Your essential theory seems to be that if someone shines a light on a pothole, then it’s their fault if people fall into it, not that of whoever dug it.
The strategy of attempting to keep it a secret has failed in every way it could possibly fail. It may be time to say “oops” and do something different.
Or, for that matter, the fault of whoever forbade the construction of safety rails around it.
To me it’s unclear whether you believe: a) that it’s bad to try to keep the basilisk because such attempt was doomed to failure,
or b) that it’s bad to try to keep it hidden because it’s always bad to keep any believed-to-be infohazard hidden, regardless of whether you’ll succeed or fail, or c) that it’s bad to try to keep this basilisk hidden, because it’s not a real infohazard, but it would be good to keep real infohazards hidden, which actually harm people you share them to.
Can you clarify to me which of (a), (b) or (c) you believe?