|
@Demi:
Sorry, but I have to back up Eratas on this. As much as I disagree with him, his arguments do not attack the person he's arguing with (wait, Eratas is a guy, right? Sorry, I can't approximate gender in the internet). Your arguments, however, do not attack his morality or his arguments, but attack him directly. There is a big difference in calling with his moral calculus unworkable and calling him naive. The former is a perfectly fine argument, provided you can back that up, the latter is called Character Assassination, a type of logical fallacy.
Besides, Eratas isn't naive. He simply has different utility preferences. He assigns high utility in not killing someone, perfectly reasonable. I assign high utility in obeying 'thou shall not kill' to the greatest extent I can (again, if more victims will die if I don't kill someone, I'll take the shot and kill, simply because if I don't, the blood of those victims are on me). You assign high utility in... whatever you believe in (sorry, I did not see a lot of arguments coming from you, aside from a poorly executed Character Assassination, no offense). We all have different utility preferences.
Anyway, no, that's not volatile enough. You can NEVER have enough volatility in comedy.
__________________
“The evil that is in the world almost always comes from ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.” ― Albert Camus
|