Comment by bumby
10 days ago
The strawman I was referring to was the binary option of "threatening to the survival of all living species...or not". Perhaps "false dichotomy" would have been a better description.
The GGP point was that this level of control has been normal when dealing with other nations. The nuclear point was that it has also previously been applied internally, so the original framing of "other nations vs us" is not particularly good.
If your counterpoint is "yeah but that's ok when it's based on existential risk" that doesn't support your first point, it just reorients the framework from "external vs internal" to "risk based". If you change the goalposts to the latter, you are actively undermining your original point. That's a fine point to make, just not coherent with your original one.
You are far too focused on the meta of this conversation and trying to head off every possible response. This isn’t conducive to discussion.
You proposed nuclear weapons as an example, that got us off on a very strange foot. That is all I was attempting to point out.
I’m the one who is trying to bring it back to the original point. I also brought up healthcare and aerospace. There are many examples of government limits on business that go against your thesis of “this has always happened externally and is only now being applied internally”.
I literally said nuclear was an example. You apparently didn’t draw the line to the broader principle.
I think we are past the point of productivity and should both move on. Have a good rest of your weekend mate.
1 reply →