A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide (see Armenians, Jews, Native Americans, all of which still exist).
I do get that actual genocide is qualitatively different from hypothetical, and even from potential genocide. What I was trying to say (and what I think the discussion was originally about) is that you are shaped by your heroes. Knowing that you admire Old Testament hero Joshua, mass murderer by divine command, provides a window into some of your values. Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide
But you’d expect the perpetrator to try a little harder than Israel actually has.
Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
Who’s to say anyone made up the story? I imagine it more like a game of telephone, where whatever incident started the story was unrecognizeable after a few hundreds of years until someone finally wrote it down.
And even if someone did directly make up parts of it, so what? Telling your child that if he stays up late the monster under the bed will eat him might not be the best of things to say to your kid, but it certainly doesn’t mean you think that being eaten is justified as a punishment for staying up late.
Agreed that making up the story only tells so much about the narrator. But so far we’re only considering the narrator.
Believing the story is what will change you. Until the day the kid knows any better, he will seriously believe that the universe has a punishment system that kills people for staying up late. If he’s upset at his little brother, he may try to trick him into not sleeping, hoping for him to be eaten. This may or may not poison their future relationship.
In a world where the kid grows up without being told the monster wasn’t real, he will tell the same story to his own kids. The first scenario will repeat itself, but this time the adult will mean it.
Edit: I just noticed this scenario contradicts my previous argument, where I suggested the narrator was more to blame than his gullible listeners. I feel more inclined to think otherwise now.
Upvoted for explicitly noticing and noting your confusion. One of the best things about Less Wrong is that noticing the flaws in one’s own argument is respected and rewarded. (As it should be, in a community of truth-seekers.)
A nation doesn’t need to be completely wiped out to be a victim of genocide (see Armenians, Jews, Native Americans, all of which still exist).
I do get that actual genocide is qualitatively different from hypothetical, and even from potential genocide. What I was trying to say (and what I think the discussion was originally about) is that you are shaped by your heroes. Knowing that you admire Old Testament hero Joshua, mass murderer by divine command, provides a window into some of your values. Knowing that your civilization intentionally made up someone like Joshua in order to glorify him is even more cause for worry.
But you’d expect the perpetrator to try a little harder than Israel actually has.
Who’s to say anyone made up the story? I imagine it more like a game of telephone, where whatever incident started the story was unrecognizeable after a few hundreds of years until someone finally wrote it down.
And even if someone did directly make up parts of it, so what? Telling your child that if he stays up late the monster under the bed will eat him might not be the best of things to say to your kid, but it certainly doesn’t mean you think that being eaten is justified as a punishment for staying up late.
Agreed that making up the story only tells so much about the narrator. But so far we’re only considering the narrator.
Believing the story is what will change you. Until the day the kid knows any better, he will seriously believe that the universe has a punishment system that kills people for staying up late. If he’s upset at his little brother, he may try to trick him into not sleeping, hoping for him to be eaten. This may or may not poison their future relationship.
In a world where the kid grows up without being told the monster wasn’t real, he will tell the same story to his own kids. The first scenario will repeat itself, but this time the adult will mean it.
Edit: I just noticed this scenario contradicts my previous argument, where I suggested the narrator was more to blame than his gullible listeners. I feel more inclined to think otherwise now.
Upvoted for explicitly noticing and noting your confusion. One of the best things about Less Wrong is that noticing the flaws in one’s own argument is respected and rewarded. (As it should be, in a community of truth-seekers.)
Good for you!